ESP-3723

Published

2025-07-28

Issue

Vol. 10 No. 7 (2025): Published

Section

Research Articles

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Ezgi Pelin YILDIZ

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

The journal adopts the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0), which means that anyone can reuse and redistribute the materials for non-commercial purposes as long as you follow the license terms and the original source is properly cited.

Author(s) shall retain the copyright of their work and grant the Journal/Publisher rights for the first publication with the work concurrently licensed since 2023 Vol.8 No.2.

Under this license, author(s) will allow third parties to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute and/or copy the content under the condition that the authors are given credit. No permission is required from the authors or the publisher.

This broad license intends to facilitate free access, as well as the unrestricted use of original works of all types. This ensures that the published work is freely and openly available in perpetuity.

By providing open access, the following benefits are brought about:

  • Higher Visibility, Availability and Citations-free and unlimited accessibility of the publication over the internet without any restrictions increases citation of the article.
  • Ease of search-publications are easily searchable in search engines and indexing databases.
  • Rapid Publication – accepted papers are immediately published online.
  • Available for free download immediately after publication at https://esp.as-pub.com/index.php/ESP

 

Copyright Statement

1.The authors certify that the submitted manuscripts are original works, do not infringe the rights of others, are free from academic misconduct and confidentiality issues, and that there are no disputes over the authorship scheme of the collaborative articles. In case of infringement, academic misconduct and confidentiality issues, as well as disputes over the authorship scheme, all responsibilities will be borne by the authors.

2. The author agrees to grant the Editorial Office of Environment and Social Psychology a licence to use the reproduction right, distribution right, information network dissemination right, performance right, translation right, and compilation right of the submitted manuscript, including the work as a whole, as well as the diagrams, tables, abstracts, and any other parts that can be extracted from the work and used in accordance with the characteristics of the journal. The Editorial Board of Environment and Social Psychology has the right to use and sub-licence the above mentioned works for wide dissemination in print, electronic and online versions, and, in accordance with the characteristics of the periodical, for the period of legal protection of the property right of the copyright in the work, and for the territorial scope of the work throughout the world.

3. The authors are entitled to the copyright of their works under the relevant laws of Singapore, provided that they do not exercise their rights in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Journal.

About Licence

Environment and Social Psychology is an open access journal and all published work is available under the Creative Commons Licence, Authors shall retain copyright of their work and grant the journal/publisher the right of first publication, and their work shall be licensed under the Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).

Under this licence, the author grants permission to third parties to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute and/or copy the content with attribution to the author. No permission from the author or publisher is required.

This broad licence is intended to facilitate free access to and unrestricted use of original works of all kinds. This ensures that published works remain free and accessible in perpetuity. Submitted manuscripts, once accepted, are immediately available to the public and permanently accessible free of charge on the journal’s official website (https://esp.as-pub.com/index.php/ESP). Allowing users to read, download, copy, print, search for or link to the full text of the article, or use it for other legal purposes. However, the use of the work must retain the author's signature, be limited to non-commercial purposes, and not be interpretative.

Click to download <Agreement on the Licence for the Use of Copyright on Environmental and Social Psychology>.

How to Cite

YILDIZ, E. P. (2025). Examining the attitudes of middle school students towards robotic coding. Environment and Social Psychology, 10(7), ESP-3723. https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v10i7.3723

Examining the attitudes of middle school students towards robotic coding

Ezgi Pelin YILDIZ

Kazim Karabekir Technical Sciences Vocational School-Department of Computer Technologies, Kafkas University, Kars, 36100, Türkiye.


DOI: https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v10i7.3723


Keywords: Robotic coding; attitude; middle school level; attitudes scale; coding education

Abstract

Coding is a language that enables communication through the utilization of information and communication technologies, and coding education is very important in providing individuals with 21st-century skills. Previous studies reported that coding education is not just about creating a program, but also that it can offer original solutions to the problems that students encounter. Coding education, which is included in the education of information and communication technologies, allows students to gain many skills. Coding education provides students with the skills of problem solving, creative thinking, analytical thinking, identifying the relationships between events or situations, noticing their own mistakes, and analyzing their consequences. Therefore, this study aims to investigate the attitudes of middle school students towards robotic coding. The study sample consists of 304 students enrolled at the middle school level of a private college in Kars-Türkiye. The data collection was performed by utilizing the attitude scale towards coding, which was developed by Yalcın, Kahraman and Yılmaz, and the validity and reliability of which were established. Since the obtained data exhibited a normal distribution, the independent sample t-test and ANOVA test were employed in the analysis. It was determined that male students’ attitudes towards robotic coding were higher. In addition, it was determined that the attitudes of students showed significant differences by variables such as gender, age, classroom, daily internet use time, and daily smartphone use time. Given the results achieved, the present study is expected to guide future studies and can be used as a guide model in this context.

References

[1]. 1.Yukselturk, E., Altıok, S., & Ucgul, M. (2017). Evaluation of a Scientific Activity Conducted for Web 2.0 Education: Participant Views. Journal of Educational Technologies and Teacher Education, 6(1), 1-8.

[2]. 2.Arabacıoglu, T., Bulbul, H. I., & Filiz, A. (2007). A New Approach to Teaching Computer Programming. Proceedings Book of the IX. Academic Informatics Conference. Kutahya/Türkiye.

[3]. 3.Ching, Y. H., Hsu, Y. C., & Baldwin, S. (2020). Developing computational thinking with educational technologies for young learners. TechTrends, 64(5), 669–681. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-020-00476-y

[4]. 4.Angeli, C., & Valanides, N. (2020). Developing young children’s computational thinking with educational robotics: A case study in the kindergarten. Early Childhood Education Journal, 48(6), 759–773. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-020-01064-8

[5]. 5.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

[6]. 6.Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 6(1), 63–71.

[7]. 7.Bers, M. U., Flannery, L., Kazakoff, E. R., & Sullivan, A. (2014). Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers & Education, 72, 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.10.020

[8]. 8.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, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.2316/Journal.209.2013.1.209-0015

[9]. 9.Eguchi, A. (2014). Robotics as a learning tool for educational transformation. Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop Teaching Robotics, Teaching with Robotics, 27–34.

[10]. 10.Zawieska, K., Czarnowska, K., & Zawieska, D. (2020). Gender-inclusive robotics: Increasing engagement of girls in coding through collaborative educational robotics activities. International Journal of STEM Education, 7(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00231-3

[11]. 11.Chalmers, C., Carter, M. L., & Cooper, T. (2020). Engaging students in STEM education through robotics: Exploring student perceptions of robotic learning activities. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 36(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.5472

[12]. 12.Román-González, M., Pérez-González, J. C., & Jiménez-Fernández, C. (2017). Which cognitive abilities underlie computational thinking? Criterion validity of the Computational Thinking Test. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 678–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.08.047

[13]. 13.Mouza, C., Yang, H., Pan, Y. C., Ozden, S. Y., & Pollock, L. (2016). Resetting educational technology coursework for pre-service teachers: A computational thinking approach to the development of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK). Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 32(5), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.3508

[14]. 14.Demir, A. G. Ö., & Seferoglu, S. S. (2017). New Concepts, Different Uses: A Review of Computational Thinking. Educational Technology Readings, 41, 468-483.

[15]. 15.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.

[16]. 16.Yagcı, M. (2018). A Study on Computational Thinking and High School Students’ Computational Thinking Skill Levels, International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 10(2), 81-96.

[17]. 17.Abdusselam, M. S. & Uzoglu, M. (2022). Investigating Secondary School Students' Attitudes Towards Coding According to Different Variables. International Journal of Turkish Education Sciences, 2022(18), 81-92. https://doi.org/10.46778/goputeb.1028285

[18]. 18.Kaučič, B. & Asič, T. (2011, May). Improving Introductory Programming with Scratch? 34th International Convention MIPRO’da sunuldu, Hrvatska.

[19]. 19.Numanoglu, M. & Keser, H. (2017). Robot Usage in Programming Education - Mbot Example. Bartın University Faculty of Education Journal 6(2), 497-515.

[20]. 20.Baser, M. (2013). Attitude Towards Computer Programming Scale Development Study. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 6(6), 199-215.

[21]. 21.Nelson, J. (1939). Nelson’s Blood: Attitudes and Actions of the Royal Navy. https://doi.org/10.1177/002200948101600305

[22]. 22.Bloom, S. (1979). Human Qualities and Learning in School (Translated by: D. A. Ozcelik). Ankara: MEB Printing House.

[23]. 23.Tavsancıl, E. (2002). Measurement of Attitudes and Data Analysis with SPSS. Ankara: Nobel Publishing House.

[24]. 24.Larsen, K. S., & Le Roux, J. A. (2013). Study of Same-Sex Touching Attitudes: Scale Development and Personality predictors. The Journal of Sex Research, 20(3), 264–278.

[25]. 25.Duatepe, A., & Cilesiz, S. (1999). Development of a Mathematics Attitude Scale. Hacettepe University Faculty of Education Journal, 16(16).

[26]. 26.Fritz, R. (2008). Power of a Positive Attitude: Discovering the Key Success. [http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ giresun/Doc?id=1027181andppg=8].

[27]. 27.Toh, L. P. E., Causo, A., Tzuo, P. W., Chen, I. M., & Yeo, S. H. (2016). A review on the use of robots in education and young children. Educational Technology & Society, 19(2), 148–163.

[28]. 28.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

[29]. 29.Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2019). Investigating the impact of a classroom-based robotics program on young children’s computational thinking. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(5), 1407–1431. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633118789308

[30]. 30.Yuen, T. T., Adams, J. D., & Dobbs, J. (2013). Robotics camps: Enhancing interest in STEM among students and teachers. Proceedings of the 120th ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Atlanta, GA.

[31]. 31.Abdusselam, M., S., & Uzoglu, M. (2020). Öğrencilerin kodlamaya yönelik tutumları: Bir ölçek geliştirme çalışması. OPUS–Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi, 16(Eğitim ve Toplum Özel Sayısı). DOI: 10.26466/opus.749822

[32]. 32.Akkus, A., & Bilgin, E. A. (2021). Examining The Attitudes of Secondary School Students Towards Coding. Pearson Journal, 6(12), 21–30. https://doi.org/10.46872/pj.262

[33]. 33.Cross, J., Hamner, E., Zito, L., Nourbakhsh, I., & Bernstein, D. (2016, October). Development of an Assessment for Measuring Middle School Student Attitudes Towards Robotics Activities. In IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE) (pp. 1–9). https://doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2016.7757677

[34]. 34.Van den Berg, A., & Visker, B. (2022). The effect of robotics education on gender differences in STEM attitudes among Dutch 7th and 8th grade students. Education Sciences, 13(2), 139. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13020139

[35]. 35.De Costa, A. (2025, June 16). RoboBlimp: Enhancing middle school STEM through educational bioinspired blimps [Preprint]. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2506.13844

[36]. 36.Dietz, G., Chen, J. K., Beason, J., Tarrow, M., Hilliard, A., & Shapiro, R. B. (2022, July 18). ARtonomous: Introducing Middle School Students to Reinforcement Learning Through Virtual Robotics [Preprint]. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2207.08974

[37]. 37.Vollstedt, M., et al. (2022). Autonomous robotics math curriculum development using C coding language to increase student attitudes and learner outcomes. International Journal of Robotics and Automation Technology. https://www.zealpress.com/jms/index.php/ijrat/article/view/430

[38]. 38.Zhang, Y., Luo, R., Zhu, Y., & Yin, Y. (2021). Educational robots improve K–12 students’ computational thinking and STEM attitudes: Systematic review. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(3), 455–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633121994071

[39]. 39.Heerink, M., Kröse, B., Evers, V., & Wielinga, B. (2019). Development and Validation of an Educational Robot Attitude Scale (ERAS) for Secondary School Students. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(3), 377–388. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2018.1474234

[40]. 40.Gavrilas, L., & Kotsis, K. T. (2024). Development and validation of a survey instrument towards attitude, knowledge, and application of educational robotics (AKAER). International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 48(1), 44–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2024.2358780

[41]. 41.Buyukozturk, S. (2020). Handbook of Data Analysis For the Social Sciences. Pegem Academy Ankara/Türkiye.

[42]. 42.Creswell. J.W. & Creswell, J.D. (2017). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 4th Edition, Sage, Newbury Park.

[43]. 43.Yalcın, S., Kahraman, S., & Yılmaz, Z. A. (2020). Development and validation of Robotic Coding Attitude Scale. International Journal of Education in Mathematics, Science and Technology, 8(4), 342-352.

[44]. 44.Creswell, J.W., & Tashakkori, A. (2007). Developing Publishable Mixed Methods Manuscripts. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1, 107-111.

[45]. 45.George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

[46]. 46.Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2

[47]. 47.Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

[48]. 48.Uyar, A., Oztürk, G., & Oztürk, Y. (2022). Attitudes of Secondary School Students Towards Coding. Journal of Inonu University Institute of Educational Sciences, 9(18), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.29129/inujgse.1166046 .

[49]. 49.Buyukozturk, S. Cakmak, E. K., Akgun, O. E., Karadeniz & S., Demirel F. (2013). Scientific Research Methods. Ankara: Pegem Academy.

[50]. 50.Askar, P., & Davenport, D. (2009). An Investigation of Factors Related to Self-Efficacy for Java Programming Among Engineering Students. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 8(1).

[51]. 51.Chang, S. L., Shieh, R. S., Liu, E. Z. F., & Yu, P. T. (2012). Factors Influencing Women’s Attitudes Towards Computers in A Computer Literacy Training Program. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 11(4), 177-187.

[52]. 52.Stoilescu, D., & Egodawatte, G. (2010). Gender Differences in the Use of Computers, Programming, and Peer Interactions in Computer Science Classrooms. Computer Science Education, 20(4), 283-300.

[53]. 53.Ozyurt, O., & Ozyurt, H. (2015). A Study to Determine the Attitudes of Computer Programming Students Towards Programming and Their Programming Self-Efficacy. Theory and Practice in Education, 11(1), 51-67.

[54]. 54.Erol, O. & Kurt, A., A., (2017). The Effects of Teaching Programming With Scratch on Pre-Service Information Technology Teachers’ Motivation and Achievement. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 11-18.

[55]. 55.Chiazzese, G., Fulantelli, G., Pipitone, V., & Taibi, D. (2018). Engaging Primary School Children in Computational Thinking: Designing and Developing Videogames. Education in the Knowledge Society, 19(2), 63-81.

[56]. 56.Arslan, A. (2016). Gender roles and education. Ankara: Pegem Academy.

[57]. 57.Yaman, F., & Yaman, S. (2014). Investigation of students' attitudes towards science and technology course according to gender variable. Kastamonu Education Journal, 22(3), 1195–1208.

[58]. 58.Akgun, O. E. (2020). Investigation of middle school students' attitudes towards robotic coding activities in terms of some variables. Gazi University Gazi Faculty of Education Journal, 40(2), 957–978.

[59]. 59.Gumus, S., & Atalmıs, E. H. (2019). STEM education and gender inequality in Türkiye: An evaluation of student attitudes and achievements. Education and Science, 44(199), 219–234. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2019.7997

[60]. 60.Karakus, F., & Aksoy, Y. (2021). Examining STEM career interests of primary school students in terms of various variables. Educational Technology Theory and Practice, 11(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.33462/etku.830551

[61]. 61.Master, A., Cheryan, S., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2016). Computing whether she belongs: Stereotypes undermine girls’ interest and sense of belonging in computer science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(3), 424–437. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000061

[62]. 62.Dasgupta, N., & Stout, J. G. (2014). Girls and women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: STEMing the tide and broadening participation in STEM careers. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732214549471

[63]. 63.Korucu, A. T., & Bicer, H. (2020). Investigation of Middle School Students' Attitudes Towards Robotic Coding According to Different Variables. International Technology and Education Journal, 4(1), 30-35.

[64]. 64.Vekiri, I., & Chronaki, A. (2008). Gender issues in technology use: Perceived social support, computer self-efficacy and value beliefs, and computer use beyond school. Computers & Education, 51(3), 1392–1404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2008.05.003

[65]. 65.Hsin, W.-J., Li, M.-C., & Tsai, C.-C. (2014). The influence of young children’s use of technology on their learning: A review. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 85–99.

[66]. 66.Selwyn, N. (2016). Education and technology: Key issues and debates (2nd ed.). Bloomsbury Academic.

[67]. 67.Rideout, V. J., Foehr, U. G., & Roberts, D. F. (2010). Generation M2: Media in the lives of 8- to 18-year-olds. Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. https://kaiserfamilyfoundation.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/8010.pdf

[68]. 68.Bloom, B., Englehart, M. Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krathwohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Classification of Educational Goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York, Toronto: Longmans, Green.

[69]. 69.Resnick, M., & Silverman, B. (2005). Some reflections on designing construction kits for kids. In Proceedings of the 2005 conference on Interaction design and children (pp. 117–122). ACM.

[70]. 70.Bers, M. (2012). Designing Digital Experiences for Positive Youth Development: From Playpen to Playground. Oxford University Press.

[71]. 71.Creswell, J., W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.

[72]. 72.Menard, S. (2002). Longitudinal research (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.

[73]. 73.Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2016). Girls, boys, and bots: Gender differences in young children’s performance on robotics and programming tasks. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 15, 145-165. https://doi.org/10.28945/3547

[74]. 74.Chambers, J., Carbonaro, M., & Murray, J. (2008). Learning to program through robotics: The effect of robotics activities on the confidence and attitudes of students. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 18(2), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-006-9009-1

[75]. 75.Nugent, G., Barker, B., Grandgenett, N., & Adamchuk, V. (2010). The 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/10.1080/15391523.2010.10782562



21 Woodlands Close #02-10, Primz Bizhub,Postal 737854, Singapore

Email:editorial_office@as-pub.com