Implementing teacher-centered robotics activities in science lessons: The effect on motivation, satisfaction and science skills
Ozan Coşkunserçe 1 *
More Detail
1 Nevşehir University, Faculty of Education, Turkey
* Corresponding Author


In studies on the use of robotic in science education, students are generally expected to design and program robots in specially designed robotic laboratories and during extracurricular activities. Although researchers claim that the student-centered approach and active student participation is more effective, teachers generally have to apply traditional teaching strategies in the field of science education due to the high number of students, a lack of materials, insufficient time and lack of professional teaching skills. Robotics activities can be performed in a traditional classroom environment and within a teacher-centered lesson structure. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of teacher-centered robotics activities performed in science lessons on students' motivation, to determine their satisfaction with the activities and to collect their opinions about the activities. A parallel mixed-methods design was used for data collection. The results of the study indicated that teacher-centered robotics activities increased the motivation of students to participate in science lessons. Moreover, when the interviews with the students were examined, all of them commented that engaging in robotics activities improved their science skills. In addition, the majority of students were satisfied with the robotics activities and had positive feelings about them, believing that they helped them to learn and were enjoyable and interesting. 



  • Ajewole, G. A. (1991). Effects of discovery and expository instructional methods on the attitude of students to biology. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 401-409.
  • Alimisis, D. (2012). Integrating robotics in science and technology teacher training curriculum. In M. Moro & D. Alimisis (Eds.), Proceedings of 3rd International Workshop Teaching Robotics, Teaching with Robotics Integrating Robotics in School Curriculum (pp. 170-179). AIP Publishing.
  • Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science & Technology Education, 6(1), 63-71.
  • Altin, H., & Pedaste, M. (2013). Learning approaches to applying robotics in science education. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 12(3), 365-377.
  • Araújo, A. R., Burlamaqui, A. M., & Aroca, R. V. (2013). Methodology for qualification of future teachers in physics' degree course using low cost robotics. In 2013 Latin American Robotics Symposium and Competition, (pp. 148-152). IEEE.
  • Başdaş, E. (2007). The effect of science activities with simple materials on scientific process skills, academic achievement and motivation in primary school science education [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Celal Bayar University, Manisa, Turkey.
  • Bolat, N. (2007). Motivation and success levels of 6th and 7th grade students in Science and Technology course at primary education with respect to learning styles [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Osmangazi University, Eskişehir, Turkey.
  • Botelho, S. S., Braz, L. G., & Rodrigues, R. N. (2012, September). Exploring creativity and sociability with an accessible educational robotic kit. Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Robotics in Education, Prague, Czech Republic.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2008). Manual of data analysis for social sciences (9nd ed.). Pegem.
  • Caballero-Garcia, P. & Grau-Fernandez, T. (2019). Influence of maker-centered classroom on the students’ motivation towards science learning. Cypriot Journal of Educational Science. 14(4), 535–544.
  • Cameron, R. G. (2005). Mindstorms Robolab: Developing Science Concepts During a Problem Based Learning Club [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning, The University of Toronto, Canada.
  • Cavas, B., Kesercioglu, T., Holbrook, J., Rannikmae, M., Ozdogru, E., & Gokler, F. (2012). The effects of robotics club on the students’ performance on science process & scientific creativity skills and perceptions on robots, human and society. In M. Moro & D. Alimisis (Eds.), Proceedings of 3rd International Workshop Teaching Robotics, Teaching with Robotics Integrating Robotics in School Curriculum, (pp. 40-50). Elsevier.
  • Chin, K. Y., Hong, Z. W., & Chen, Y. L. (2014). Impact of using an educational robot-based learning system on students’ motivation in elementary education. IEEE Transactions on learning technologies, 7(4), 333-345.
  • Chootongchai, S., Songkram, N., & Piromsopa, K. (2019). Dimensions of robotic education quality: teachers’ perspectives as teaching assistants in Thai elementary schools. Education and Information Technologies, 1-21.
  • Cohen, H. G. (1992). Two teaching strategies: Their effectiveness with students of varying cognitive abilities. School Science and Mathematics, 92(3), 126-132.
  • Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). Sage.
  • Çınar, M. (2019). An examination of the effects of object-oriented and robotics programming on student achievement, abstraction, problem solving and motivation [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
  • Datteri, E., Zecca, L., Laudisa, F., & Castiglioni, M. (2013). Learning to explain: the role of educational robots in science education. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 6(1), 29-38.
  • Elen, J., Clarebout, G., Leonard, R., & Lowyck, J. (2007). Student-centred and teacher-centred learning environments: What students think?. Teaching in higher education, 12(1), 105-117.
  • Elkin, M., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2014). Implementing a robotics curriculum in an early childhood Montessori classroom. Journal of Information Technology Education: Innovations in Practice, 13, 153-169.
  • Gerstner, S., & Bogner, F. X. (2010). Cognitive Achievement and Motivation in Hands‐on and Teacher‐Centred Science Classes: Does an additional hands‐on consolidation phase (concept mapping) optimise cognitive learning at work stations?. International Journal of Science Education, 32(7), 849-870.
  • Gibbon, L. W. (2007). Effects of lego mindstorms on convergent and divergent problem-solving and spatial abilities in fifth and sixth grade students [Doctoral dissertation]. Seattle Pacific University, Seattle, USA.
  • Goldman, R., Eguchi, A., & Sklar, E. (2004). Using educational robotics to engage inner-city students with technology. Y. B.Kafai, W. A. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A. S. Nixon & F. Herrera (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Learning Sciences, (pp. 214-221). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • Hockings, C. (2009). Reaching the students that student‐centred learning cannot reach. British Educational Research Journal, 35(1), 83-98.
  • Hong, Z. W., Huang, Y. M., Hsu, M., & Shen, W. W. (2016). Authoring robot-assisted instructional materials for improving learning performance and motivation in EFL classrooms. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 19(1), 337-349.
  • Ishii, N., Suzuki, Y., Fujiyoshi, H., Fujii, T., & Kozawa, M. (2007). A framework for designing and improving learning environments fostering creativity. Psicologia Escolar e Educacional, 11(SPE), 59-69.
  • Jara, C. A., Candelas, F. A., Puente, S. T., & Torres, F. (2011). Hands-on experiences of undergraduate students in Automatics and Robotics using a virtual and remote laboratory. Computers & Education, 57, 2451-2461.
  • Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2019). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Sage.
  • Julià, C., & Antolí, J. Ò. (2016). Spatial ability learning through educational robotics. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(2), 185-203.
  • Kandlhofer, M., & Steinbauer, G. (2016). Evaluating the impact of educational robotics on pupils’ technical-and social-skills and science related attitudes. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 679-685.
  • Karahoca, D., Karahoca, A., & Uzunboylu, H. (2011). Robotics teaching in primary school education by project based learning for supporting science and technology courses. Procedia Computer Science, 3, 1425-1431.
  • Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: An overview of their current status (pp.383-434). Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Khanlari, A. (2013). Effects of robotics on 21st century skills. European Scientific Journal, 9(27), 26-36.
  • Kim, C., Kim, D., Yuan, J., Hill, R. B., Doshi, P., & Thai, C. N. (2015). Robotics to promote elementary education pre-service teachers' STEM engagement, learning, and teaching. Computers & Education, 91, 14-31.
  • Koç, A. (2012). Science and technology laboratory applications supported by robotic: ROBOLAB [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Erciyes University, Faculty of Education, Kayseri.
  • Koç, A., & Böyük, U. (2013). Technology based learning in science and technology education: Robotic applications. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 10(1), 139-155.
  • Kurkovsky, S. (2014). Interdisciplinary connections in a mobile computing and robotics course. In A. Cajader, M. Daniels, T. Clear & A Pears (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Innovation & technology in computer science education (pp. 309-314). Association for Computing Machinery.
  • Lathifah, A., Budiyanto, C. W., & Yuana, R. A. (2019). The contribution of robotics education in primary schools: Teaching and learning. In N. Y. Indriyanti, M. Ramli & F. Nurhasanah (Eds.), The 2nd International Conference on Science, Mathematics, Environment, and Education, 2194(1), 020053. AIP Publishing.
  • Lee, O., & Brophy, J. (1996). Motivational patterns observed in sixth‐grade science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching: The Official Journal of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, 33(3), 303-318.<303::AID-TEA4>3.0.CO;2-X
  • 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: An international journal, 38(8), 1135-1146.
  • McGill, M. M. (2012). Learning to program with personal robots: Influences on student motivation. ACM Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 12(1), 1-32.
  • McWhorter, W. I., & O'Connor, B. C. (2009). Do LEGO® Mindstorms® motivate students in CS1?. In S. Fitzgerald, M. Guzdial, G. Lewandowski, S. Wolfman & T. J. Cortina (Eds.), Proceedings of the 40th ACM technical symposium on Computer science Education (pp. 438-442). The Association for Computing Machinery..
  • Menekse, M., Higashi, R., Schunn, C. D., & Baehr, E. (2017). The role of robotics teams’ collaboration quality on team performance in a robotics tournament. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(4), 564-584.
  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis. Sage.
  • Nugent, G., Barker, B., Grandgenett, N., & Adamchuk, V. I. (2010). Impact of robotics and geospatial technology interventions on youth STEM learning and attitudes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 42(4), 391-408.
  • Numanoğlu, M., & Keser, H. (2017). Robot usage in programmıng teachıng - mbot example. Bartin University Journal of Faculty of Education, 6(2), 497-515.
  • Özden, M. Y., & Durdu, L. (2016). Qualitative research methods for production-based studies in education. Anı.
  • Park, J. (2015). Effect of Robotics enhanced inquiry based learning in elementary Science education in South Korea. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 34(1), 71-95.
  • Prosser, M., Trigwell, K. & Taylor, P. (1994). A phenomenographic study of academics’ conceptions of science learning and teaching. Learning and Instruction, 4(3), 217–231.
  • Randler, C. and Hulde, M. (2007). Hands‐on versus teacher‐centred experiments in soil ecology. Research in Science & Technological Education, 25(3), 329–338.
  • Sakata Junior, K., & Olguin, G. S. (2011, September). Robotics: A case study of contextualization in engineering education. Paper presented at the World Engineering Education, Lisbon, Prtugal.
  • Saleiro M., Carmo B., Rodrigues J.M.F., du Buf J.M.H. (2013). A low-cost classroom-oriented educational robotics system. In: Herrmann G., Pearson M.J., Lenz A., Bremner P., Spiers A., Leonards U. (Eds.), Social Robotics. ICSR 2013. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol 8239, pp. 74-83). Springer, Cham.
  • Sáez-López, J. M., Sevillano-García, M. L., & Vazquez-Cano, E. (2019). The effect of programming on primary school students’ mathematical and scientific understanding: educational use of mBot. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67(6), 1405-1425.
  • Scaradozzi, D., Sorbi, L., Pedale, A., Valzano, M., & Vergine, C. (2015). Teaching robotics at the primary school: an innovative approach. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 174, 3838-3846.
  • Schmidt, J. T. (2007). Preparing students for success in blended learning environments: Future oriented motivation and self-regulation [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Ludwig Maximilians University München, Germany.
  • Silva, J. M. V. D. (2008). Robótica no ensino da física [Robotics in physics education]. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Minho, Portugal.
  • Somyürek, S. (2015). An effective educational tool: construction kits for fun and meaningful learning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(1), 25-41.
  • Taylor, K., & Baek, Y. (2018). Collaborative robotics, more than just working in groups. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(7), 979-1004.
  • Tuan, H. L., Chin, C. C., & Shieh, S. H. (2005). The development of a questionnaire to measure students' motivation towards science learning. International Journal of Science Education, 27(6), 639-654.
  • Ucgul, M., & Cagiltay, K. (2014). Design and development issues for educational robotics training camps. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24(2), 203-222.
  • Williams, D. C., Ma, Y., Prejean, L., Ford, M. J., & Lai, G. (2007). Acquisition of physics content knowledge and scientific inquiry skills in a robotics summer camp. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 40(2), 201-216.
  • Yıldız, B. (2020). Developing the attitude scale for Arduino use in courses. Elementary Education Online, 19(2), 982-990.
  • Yolcu, V., & Demirer, V. (2017). A systematic overview of the studies on the use of robotics in education. SDU International Journal of Educational Studies, 4(2), 127-139.
  • Zarotiadou, E., & Tsaparlis, G. (2000). Teaching lower-secondary chemistry with a Piagetian constructivist and an Ausbelian meaningful-receptive method: A longitudinal comparison. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 1(1), 37-50.


This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.