International Association of Educators   |  ISSN: 1554-5210

Original article | International Journal of Progressive Education 2020, Vol. 16(4) 13-26

How do Students' Attitudes Towards Programming and Self-Efficacy in Programming Change in the Robotic Programming Process?

Osman Erol

pp. 13 - 26   |  DOI:   |  Manu. Number: MANU-1910-06-0001

Published online: August 13, 2020  |   Number of Views: 90  |  Number of Download: 271


The aim of this study is to examine the effect of robotic design with Arduino on students' attitudes towards programming and on their perceptions of self-efficacy in programming. The study group consisted of 25 sophomore students attending the Department of Computer Education and Instructional Technologies in a state university located in the south of Turkey. The study lasted 12 weeks and the participants performed robotic design activities with Arduino throughout the process. Firstly, participants prepared a prototype and then programmed it for 8 weeks, and they created their own designs in the remaining 4 weeks. The Computer Programming Attitude Scale and Computer Programming Self-Efficacy Scale were utilized as the data collection tools in this pretest-posttest experimental study. The findings revealed that robotic design activities with Arduino significantly improved the participants’ attitudes towards programming and programming self-efficacy. In addition, according to the participants’ views, the factors that cause this improvement can be listed as activities’ being enjoyable, facilitating and concretizing the process, being interesting and practical.  Moreover, these robotic design activities were found to contribute to students’ understanding of finding bugs and the logic of programming.

Keywords: Robotic, Arduino, Attitude towards Programming, Programming Self-Efficacy

How to Cite this Article?

APA 6th edition
Erol, O. (2020). How do Students' Attitudes Towards Programming and Self-Efficacy in Programming Change in the Robotic Programming Process? . International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(4), 13-26. doi: 10.29329/ijpe.2020.268.2

Erol, O. (2020). How do Students' Attitudes Towards Programming and Self-Efficacy in Programming Change in the Robotic Programming Process? . International Journal of Progressive Education, 16(4), pp. 13-26.

Chicago 16th edition
Erol, Osman (2020). "How do Students' Attitudes Towards Programming and Self-Efficacy in Programming Change in the Robotic Programming Process? ". International Journal of Progressive Education 16 (4):13-26. doi:10.29329/ijpe.2020.268.2.

  1. Akkoyunlu, B., & Kurbanoglu, S. (2004). A study on teachers’ information literacy self-efficacy beliefs. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 27, 11-20. [Google Scholar]
  2. Altun, A., & Mazman, S. G. (2012). Developing computer programming self-efficacy scale. Journal of Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, 3, 2, 297–308. [Google Scholar]
  3. Álvarez, A., & Larrañaga, M. (2016). Experiences incorporating Lego Mindstorms Robots in the basic programming syllabus: Lessons learned. Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems: Theory and Applications, 117–129.  DOI:10.1007/s10846-015-0202-6 [Google Scholar]
  4. Anderson, L. W. (1988). Attitudes and their measurement. Keeves, J. P. (Ed.). In Educational research, methodology and measurement: An international handbook (s.421-426). New York: Pergamon Press. [Google Scholar]
  5. Anastasiadou, S.D., & Karakos, A.S. (2011). The beliefs of electrical and computer engineering students’ regarding computer programming. The International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society, 7(1), 37-51. [Google Scholar]
  6. Aşkar, 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 – TOJET January. 8(1). [Google Scholar]
  7. Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge university press. [Google Scholar]
  8. Başer, M. (2013). Developing attitude scale toward computer programming. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 6 (6), 199 – 215.  [Google Scholar]
  9. Benitti, F.B.V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978-988.  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  10. Bennedsen, J., & Carpersen, M. E. (2008). Exposing the programming process. Bennedsen, J.,Carpersen, M. E., & Kolling, M. (Eds.). In Reflection on the theory of programming: Methods and implementation (pp.6-16). Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York [Google Scholar]
  11. Beug, A. (2012). Teaching introductory programming concepts: A comparison of Scratch and Arduino. Unpublished Mastes Thesis,  The Faculty of California Polytechnic State University, Obispo, San Luis. [Google Scholar]
  12. Bustillo, J., & Garaizar, P. (2016). Using Scratch to foster creativity behind bars: Two positive experiences in jail. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 19, 60–72.  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  13. Cohen, J.W. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2. Edition). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [Google Scholar]
  14. Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure and initial test. MIS quarterly, 189-211. [Google Scholar]
  15. Davidson, K., Larzon, L., & Ljunggren, K. (2010). Self-Efficacy in Programming among STS Students. Technical Reports from Computer Science Education course of Upssala University [Google Scholar]
  16. Demirtaş, H., Cömert, M., & Özer, N. (2011). Öğretmen adaylarının özyeterlik inançları ve öğretmenlik mesleğine ilişkin tutumları. Eğitim ve Bilim, 36(159). [Google Scholar]
  17. Eguchi, A. (2010). What is educational robotics? Theories behind it and practical implementation. In Gibson D., & Dodge B. (eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2010 (pp. 4006-4014). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. [Google Scholar]
  18. 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.  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  19. Fortus, D., Krajcik, J., Dershimer, R. C., Marx, R. W., & Mamlok- Naamand, R. (2005). Design-based science and real world problem- solving. International Journal of Science Education, 27(7), 855–879. [Google Scholar]
  20. Gerecke, U., & Wagner, B. (2007). The challenges and benefits of using robots in higher education. Intelligent Automation and Soft Computing, 13(1), 29–43. [Google Scholar]
  21. Grubbs, M. (2013). Robotics intrigue middle school students and build STEM skills. Technol Eng Teach, 72(6), 12–16 [Google Scholar]
  22. Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1991). Software design as a learning environment. Interactive Learning Environments, 1(1), 1-30. [Google Scholar]
  23. Jaipal-Jamani, K., & 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. [Google Scholar]
  24. Jang, Y., Lee, W., & Kim, J. (2015). Assessing the usefulness of object-based programming education using arduino. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 8(S1), 89-96. [Google Scholar]
  25. Jenkins, T. (2002). On the difficulty of learning to program. Proceedings of 3rd annual conference of the LTSN-ICS, 53-58, Loughborough, United Kingdom.  [Google Scholar]
  26. Kafai, Y. B. (2006). Playing and making games for learning instructionist and constructionist perspectives for game studies. Games and Culture, 1(1), 36-40. [Google Scholar]
  27. Karsten, R., & Roth, R. M. (1998). Computer self-efficacy: A practical indicator of student computer competency in introductory IS courses. Informing Science, 1(3), 61-68. [Google Scholar]
  28. Ke, F. (2014). An implementation of design-based learning through creating educational computer games: A case study on mathematics learning during design and computing. Computers & Education, 73, 26–39.  [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  29. Korkmaz, O. (2016). The effect of Lego Mindstorms Ev3 based design activities on students’ attitudes towards learning computer programming, self-efficacy beliefs and levels of academic achievement. Baltic Journal of Modern Computing, 4(4), 994–1007. doi:10.22364/bjmc.2016.4.4.24 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  30. Korkmaz, Ö., & Altun, H. (2013). Engineering and ceit student’s attitude towards learning computer programming. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies International Journal of Social Science, 6(2), 1169-1185. [Google Scholar]
  31. Kurebayashi, S., Kamada, T., & Kanemune, S. (2006). Learning computer programming with autonomous robots. In International Conference on Informatics in Secondary Schools-Evolution and Perspectives (pp. 138-149). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kutluca, T., & Ekici, G. (2010). Examining teacher candidates’ attitudes and self-efficacy perceptions towards the computer assisted education. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 38(38). [Google Scholar]
  33. Lamb, A., & Johnson, L., (2011), Scratch: computer programming for 21st century learners. Teacher Librarian, 38 (4), 64-68.  [Google Scholar]
  34. Lin, J. M.C., & Liu, S.F. (2012), An investigation into parent-child collaboration in learning computer programming. Educational Technology & Society, 15 (1), 162–173. [Google Scholar]
  35. Lin, C. H., Liu, E. Z. F., & Huang, Y. Y. (2012). Exploring parents’ perceptions toward educational robots: Gender and socioeconomic difference. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), E31-E34. [Google Scholar]
  36. Liu, E. Z. F., Lin, C. H., & Chang, C. S. (2010). Student satisfaction and self-efficacy in a cooperative robotics course. Social Behavior and Personality, 38(8), 1135-1146. [Google Scholar]
  37. Liu, E. Z-H., Lin, C-H., Feng, H-C., & 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. [Google Scholar]
  38. Liu, A., Newsom, J., Schunn, C. & Shoop, R. (2013). Students learn programming faster through robotic simulation. Tech Directions, 72(8), 16–19. [Google Scholar]
  39. Maio, G., & Haddock, G. (2009). The psychology of attitudes and attitude change. SAGE Publications Limited. [Google Scholar]
  40. Major, L., Kyriacou, T., & Brereton, O. P. (2012). Systematic literature review: teaching novices programming using robots. IET Software, 6(6), 502. doi:10.1049/iet-sen.2011.0125 [Google Scholar] [Crossref] 
  41. Mishra, P., & Girod, M. (2006). Designing learning through learning to design. The High School Journal, 90(1), 44e51 [Google Scholar]
  42. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books. [Google Scholar]
  43. Ramalingam V., & Wiedenbeck S. (1998). Development and validation of scores on a computer programming self efficacy scale and group analyses of novice programmer self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 19, 4, 365–379. [Google Scholar]
  44. Rubio, M. A., Hierro, C. M., & Pablo, A. P. D. Y. (2013). Using arduino to enhance computer programming courses in science and engineering. In Proceedings of EDULEARN13 conference (pp. 1-3). [Google Scholar]
  45. Schwartz, J., Stagner, J., & Morrison, W. (2006). Kid's programming language (KPL). In ACM SIGGRAPH 2006 Educators program (p. 52). ACM. [Google Scholar]
  46. Şişman, B., & Küçük, S. (2018). Pre-Service Teachers’ Flow, Anxiety And Cognitive Load Levels In Robotics Programming. Eğitim Teknolojisi Kuram ve Uygulama, 8(2), 125-156. [Google Scholar]
  47. Tai, D.W.S., Yu, C.H. Laive, L.C. & Lin, S.J. (2003). A study on the effects of spatialability in promoting the logical thinking abilities of students with regard to programming language. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 2(2), 251-254. [Google Scholar]
  48. de Vries, E. (2006). Students’construction of external representations in design-based learning situations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 213–227. [Google Scholar]