[Link].

net

Studies on Robotic Coding Education in

Science Education: A Systematic
Literature Review

Munise Seckin-Kapucu
Eskisehir Osmangazi University

ISSN: 2149-214X

To cite this article:

Seckin-Kapucu, M. (2023). Studies on robotic coding education in science education: A

systematic literature review. Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health
(JESEH), 9(1), 74-84. [Link] 10.55549/jeseh.1239093

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.

Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,

systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

Authors alone are responsible for the contents of their articles. The journal owns the
copyright of the articles.

The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or
costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of the research material.
 Journal of Education in Science, Environment and Health
Volume 9, Issue 1, 2023 [Link]

Studies on Robotic Coding Education in Science Education: A Systematic

Literature Review
Munise Seckin-Kapucu

Article Info Abstract

Article History This study aims to examine the methodological trends and findings in studies on
robotic coding in science education published between 2015-2022
Published: comprehensively and holistically. For this purpose, the articles related to the
01 January 2023 subject were systematically reviewed. In addition, web of Science and SCOPUS
databases were scanned for keywords related to robotic coding, and 15 studies on
Received:
10 September 2022
robotic coding with full-text access were included in the analysis. The
researchers prepared a data collection form to analyze the publications included
Accepted: in the research within the framework of the determined categories. Regarding the
30 December 2022 results of the review of robotic coding studies in science education, they mainly
focus on cognitive skills, followed by applied studies in robotic coding teaching.
Keywords The suggestions for future robotic coding studies in science education mainly
involve applications and further research. Regarding applications, there are more
Robotic coding suggestions for the integration of robotic coding. In this context, it was
Science education recommended to carry out studies that examine various 21st-century skills,
Systematic review integrate different disciplines, use different equipment, address psychomotor
skills, and focus on curriculum development.

Introduction
The widespread use of technology in the world has led to developments in many areas. For example,
communication technologies such as tablets, phones, and computers are widely used in homes, workplaces,
schools, and social life. Computers used in workplaces, robot vacuums used at home, and self-parking vehicles
are examples of technologies used in daily life.

Individuals of the 21st century have access to vast amounts of information and live in a technology- and media-
driven environment. For this reason, there is a need for the use of technology in education and the integration of
innovative, developing, and widely used technologies into lessons. For example, augmented reality, virtual
reality, mixed reality, mobile applications, simulation, social networks (Facebook, Instagram, etc.), educational
and digital games, digital storytelling, artificial intelligence, QR code applications, and 3D printing (Adams
Becker et al. 2016; Johnson et al., 2015), metaverse and robotic technologies are developing technologies that
are frequently used in education.

New educational approaches and models have emerged with the increasing use of technology in education. One
of these models is robotic coding, which is on the agenda as a sub-dimension of STEM (Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics) (Reader, 2019). Parents and educators have recently started to concentrate on
the missing "T" of technology and the "E" of engineering in STEM programs thanks to the development of new
technologies, curricula, and national efforts (Bers et al., 2013). Therefore, it can be said that providing robotics
and coding training with a STEM approach will make it easier to reach 21 st-century skills.

Individuals need 21st-century skills to adapt to the changing world. However, different institutions,
organizations, and authors classify 21st-century skills differently (Partnership for 21st Century Skills[P21], 2010;
Trilling & Fadel, 2012; Wagner, 2008). For example, P21 classifies 21st-century skills as learning and
innovation skills, career and life skills, and information, media, and technology skills. Trilling & Fadel (2012)
address 21st-century skills in three sub-titles: learning and innovation, digital literacy, and career and life skills.
Wagner (2008), on the other hand, discusses 21st-century skills under seven headings, taking the initiative,
entrepreneurship, adaptability, leadership, cooperation, problem-solving, critical thinking, imagination, access to
information, and communication. These skills overlap with the skills required for coding (technology literacy,
communication, problem-solving, scientific creativity, cognitive process skills, etc.).
 J Educ Sci Environ Health 75

The concepts of coding and programming began to be used in education in the 1960s. As a result, coding and
programming are used interchangeably in the sources. However, it should be noted that programming is a broad
concept that includes coding. Moreover, the interest in coding, which has emerged as a requirement of the
digital world, is increasing. In general, coding emerges as describing the tasks we want a computer, machine, or
system to do in an appropriate language. Coding is the entirety or a portion of a series of instructions written for
a computer, electronic circuit, or mechanical device to carry out an action or accomplish a certain goal (Guven
et al., 2022). In other words, coding is writing a block-based computer program by setting up various algorithms
using a software language (Reader, 2019). Coding can be done with or without a computer. In computerized
coding, tablets and smartphones can be used instead of computers.

Garcia-Pealvo et al. (2016) claim that teaching kids how to code enhances their capacity to use technology,
helps them learn, and gets them ready for a variety of life situations. The ability to code is acknowledged as
being vital for the growth of computational thinking, teamwork, communication, and creative problem-solving
skills (Bocconi et al., 2016). Bers (2008) sees coding as a way to achieve literacy in the 21 st century, just like
reading and writing.

Although the discussions about coding started in the USA, they have rapidly spread to other countries (Aydeniz
& Bilican, 2018). Coding education did not stay only at the K12 level (preschool, primary and secondary
education) but also took place in undergraduate and graduate education. Many countries (USA, Australia,
Brazil, Europe, etc.) have included coding education in their curriculum to improve children's computer
programming and coding skills (Aydeniz & Bilican, 2018). Coding education efforts took place nationally and
locally in these countries (USA, Australia, Brazil, Europe, etc.). In Turkey, the Ministry of National Education
has decided to gradually add a course called "Information Technologies and Software" to the curriculum starting
from the fifth grade in the 2012-2013 academic year (Sayın & Seferoğlu 2016). There are different
organizations and different practices related to coding. Organizations such as Code Academy, Code Club, Khan
Academy, Coder Dojo, and [Link] continue their efforts to teach coding in the programming field.
Programming tools such as Microsoft Small Basic, Alice, MIT App Inventor, and Scratch are also available for
individuals who have just started programming (Demirer & Sak, 2016).

Another concept that comes up with coding is robotics. Robots are functional tools that can be programmed to
perform a task. Robots can sense the environment through sensors; the data obtained from sensors are
interpreted, and various reactions are produced as programmed by the microcontroller or processor (Guven et
al., 2022). Robots are controllable and programmable technological devices with sensors consisting of electronic
and mechanical parts (Arora, 2008). The use of robots has become widespread not only in engineering but also
in education (Yolcu & Demirer, 2017; Papert, 1980). On the other hand, robotic coding is defined as block-
based programming to control and direct the movements of a robot created for various purposes (Reader, 2019).

The number of studies (articles, web pages, and various materials) on using robots in education is increasing.
The studies on the educational use of robots stated that robots contribute positively to students' problem-solving
skills (Robinson, 2005; Rogers & Portsmore, 2004). In addition, educational robotics applications attract the
attention of students (Prensky, 2008), increase their learning motivation (Bazylev et al., 2014; Robinson, 2005;
Rogers & Portsmore, 2004), improve their self-efficacy (Psycharis & Kallia, 2017), creative, critical,
computational thinking skills (Catlin, 2012; Czerkawski & Lyman, 2015) and contribute positively to their
learning in cognitive, affective, social and moral development areas (Lau & Yuen, 2011; Wei et al., 2011).

By combining robots and cutting-edge technological applications in the classroom, the studies in the subject of
robotics education seek to give teachers a robotics curriculum that is connected with science and technology and
to make learning more significant and lasting (Wood, 2003). The widespread interest in robotics has grown
surprisingly over the past few years. Robotics is seen by many as a means of providing critical new benefits at
all levels of education (Johnson, 2003). Robots used in education seem to be suitable tools to improve learning.
However, more empirical studies are needed to test their benefit (Benitti, 2012).

The WOS database was used for the systematic review of coding education in science education. The database
was scanned using robotic coding and systematic analysis as keywords, and 18 studies have been found.
However, only four of these studies were conducted in the field of education (Ezeamuzie, 2022; Sun & Zhou,
2022; Taslibeyaz, 2020; Wang et al., 2021). Furthermore, one of these studies was a meta-analysis (Sun &
Zhou, 2022). This situation shows a need for more systematic reviews on coding education in science education.
This study is important because it synthesizes the studies conducted between 2015-2022 on robotic coding
education in science education.
76 Seckin-Kapucu

This study is valuable for determining the trends in robotic coding education in science education. It aims to
determine the trends of the studies conducted between 2015-2022 on robotic coding in science education. In
addition, this study interprets and outlines research on robotic coding in science education.

Method
This study was designed as a systematic literature review (SLR) on robotic coding in science education. The
systematic review is a method mainly developed to synthesize research findings in medicine systematically,
transparently, and reproducibly (Davis et al., 2014).

A systematic review can be described as a research method and process for collecting and analyzing data from
research and identifying and critically evaluating the relevant ones (Liberati et al., 2009). It aims to reveal all
empirical evidence that meets predetermined inclusion criteria to answer a particular research question or test a
hypothesis (Snyder, 2019). Examining the articles and all available evidence through clear and systematic
methods provides reliable findings by minimizing bias (Moher et al., 2009).

Literature review studies are divided into three; formal review (traditional, narrative review), systematic review,
and meta-analysis (Petticrew & Roberts, 2006). A systematic review consists of three stages: planning,
execution, reporting & generalization (Tranfield et al., 2003). This study systematically examined the literature
on robotic coding in science education, following the five steps suggested by Petticrew and Roberts (2006).
These steps are; Formulating the research question(s), defining inclusion/exclusion criteria, recording relevant
studies systematically, evaluating the quality of selected studies, integrating major findings. In other systematic
literature review studies, same procedures have also been employed (Ozsen, 2022; Uslu, 2020).

Research Questions

This study aims to conduct a literature review on the use of robotic coding in science education for the
following purposes:
(a) presenting a synthesis of the empirical evidence available so far on robotic coding in science education
(b) submitting suggestions for future studies on robotic coding in science education based on the reviewed
literature

Inclusion-Exclusion Criteria

A systematic search begins by defining the scope, keywords, and search terms generated from the literature and
discussions within the review team (Tranfield et al., 2003). In this study, the researcher first defined the criteria
before starting the systematic research protocol to select studies related to robotic coding education.

Inclusion Exclusion
+ listed in certain indexes (Web of Knowledge and - country-specific indexes (e.g., Australian Education
SCOPUS) Index, British Education Index, etc.)
+ relevance to robotic coding education (in science - irrelevance to robotic coding education
education) - published before 2015
+ published after 2015 - not in English
+ written in English - not a peer-reviewed article
+ a peer-reviewed article - not empirical research
+ empirical research

Systematic Search Protocol

Studies were primarily identified through systematic searches made on relevant electronic databases. In the data
collection process, WOS and Scopus databases were scanned for publications published between 2015-2022,
with robotic coding education AND science education in their keywords, and 74 studies were listed. In the WOS
database, 50 articles with the robotic coding education AND science education keywords in the title section
were reached. In the Scopus database, 24 articles with the robotic coding education AND science education
(limited to social science) keywords in the title section were found.
 J Educ Sci Environ Health 77

The search duration depended on the availability of access to electronic databases from the Eskisehir Osmangazi
University library between June 2022 and August 2022.

Retrieved articles were examined in terms of title, abstract, and keywords, and studies on coding in science
education were selected. The number of sources included and excluded at each review stage is documented,
along with the reasons for exclusion (Tranfield et al., 2003). For example, 8 papers were not included in the
study, because there were doubts about their reliability and the other 51 studies were excluded because there
have not addressed coding in science education. As a result of the eliminations made according to the criteria,
15 articles suitable for this study were included (Figure 1). This study followed the PRISMA guideline, which
provides an evidence-based framework and standards for conducting a systematic review. The PRISMA
flowchart represents the key findings of the systematic analysis. The flowchart includes four stages:
identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion (Moher et al., 2009).

Figure 1. PRISMA Flowchart for the systematic review on "robotic coding education."

Quality Appraisal

The evaluation of the quality of qualitative research is quite controversial. There is little consensus on how to
evaluate quality, who should evaluate it, and whether quality should be considered concerning "qualitative"
research (Seale, 1999; Spencer et al., 2003). The quality of any systematic review or meta-synthesis depends on
the quality of the works it contains. However, there is no definitive list of criteria for evaluating the quality of
qualitative studies (Popay et al., 1998). The quality of qualitative research should be evaluated to avoid reaching
unreliable conclusions (Thomas & Harden, 2008). All the studies selected in this review are articles published in
peer-reviewed journals indexed in prestigious academic databases (WOS, SCOPUS). In addition, all selected
articles consist of empirical research. Seven of these selected studies were full-text papers presented at
congresses. They were excluded from the study because a consensus could not be reached on the quality of the
full-text papers. Therefore, the entire methodology has been rigorously reviewed. First, a customized evaluation
and data extraction form that utilizes primary research evaluation tools was developed. Individual studies in the
78 Seckin-Kapucu

systematic review were evaluated according to predetermined criteria and checklists to assist the process
(Oxman, 1994). After the first reading of the complete text, each study underwent repeated readings and was
evaluated during these readings to confirm that it met the inclusion criteria, and the findings were summarized
in customized form. In most cases, dual inference processes were followed, in which two independent
evaluators analyze and compare the publication and, if necessary, reconcile their findings (Tranfield et al.,
2003). In this study, the data were analyzed separately by a measurement and evaluation specialist, and a
consensus was reached. The findings were then examined by a field expert working on robotic coding. Thus, the
credibility of the research was increased by diversifying researchers. We can say that the 15 articles selected at
the end of this process exhibit a certain level of academic quality. The systematic review takes time and requires
attention to detail. However, it is the most efficient and high-quality method to comprehensively identify and
evaluate the literature (Mulrow, 1994).

Integration of Analysis Results

Data extraction forms are used in systematic reviews to reduce human error and bias. They usually include
general information (title, author, publication details), study characteristics and specific information (details and
methods), and notes on emerging themes with synthesis details (Tranfield et al., 2003).

The researcher first analyzed each selected article separately. Then, an 18-page Word document containing
information about each study (author, title, keywords, year of publication, purpose of the study type, sample
groups, data collection tools, data analysis techniques, results, and recommendations) was generated for
effective data extraction. The researcher focused primarily on the findings/results and discussion/conclusion
sections. After extracting the data, the Word documents were analyzed for similarities and differences in the
results of each research report/study. Based on the similarities, three main topics were created to present the data
in a way that would fit the study's purpose.

A rigorous systematic review process is used in a systematic review to collect the articles, and then a qualitative
approach is adopted to evaluate them (Snyder, 2019). In this study, codes, categories, and significant themes
were created by content analysis. Next, the themes obtained from the studies were synthesized, and inductive
inferences were made. Then, the data analysis process and the findings were explained. A measurement-
assessment expert also analyzed the codes suggested by the researcher. The analysis results were then examined
by an expert working in the field of robotic coding.

Results and Discussion

The results obtained from the studies on robotic coding in science education were examined and shown in Table
1.

Table 1. Results from studies on robotic coding in science education

Theme Category Code Studies
Results Cognitive skills 21st-century skills S4, S7, S9, S12
Computational thinking skills S8, S12, S13, S15
Applications in robotic Integration into disciplines S2, S4, S5, S6, S12
coding teaching
Tools/hardware used in the application S4, S5, S6
Affective Variables Interest S10, S11, S14
Motivation S11
Opinion S1

Regarding robotic coding studies in science education covered in this study, they mainly focus on cognitive
skills; these skills include 21st-century skills (communication, problem-solving, scientific creativity, cognitive
process skills) and computational thinking skills (computational thinking, algorithmic thinking, mathematical
understanding). Application studies follow them. These applications are mainly in science and engineering, and
Arduino and tablet applications are used. Finally, the studies on affective variables focused on interest,
motivation, and opinion. The suggestions of the studies on robotic coding in science education were examined
and shown in Table 2.
 J Educ Sci Environ Health 79

Table 2. Suggestions of the studies on robotic coding in science education

Theme Category Code Studies
Suggestions Application Integration of robotic coding (field, subject, S2, S9, S11,
educational environment-in-service training) S12
Using robotic coding at different learning levels S5, S7, S12
Carrying out studies on teaching robotic coding S4
Carrying out studies on the use of different S15
robotic coding programs
Future Research Large scale studies S1, S3, S8
Using different data collection tools S8, S14
Further and in-depth research S10
Studies addressing gender variable S13

The suggestions for robotic coding studies in science education are mostly related to applications and future
research. The integration of robotic coding is the most mentioned suggestion for the application. These
integrations cover STEM fields, different subjects, educational environments, and teacher training. This
suggestion is followed by using robotic coding at different learning levels, carrying out studies on teaching
robotic coding, and using different robotic coding [Link] most mentioned suggestion for future research
is conducting large-scale studies, followed by using different data collection tools, carrying out further and in-
depth research, and addressing the gender variable.

Conclusion
This study is considered important for revealing the trend in studies carried out in coding and robotics between
2015-2022. In addition, it is thought that it will guide future researchers who will make robotic coding in
science education. Thus, the results obtained from the publications on robotic coding education in science
education are discussed in this study.

Regarding the results of robotic coding studies in science education, they mainly focus on cognitive skills
related to 21st-century skills (communication, problem-solving, scientific creativity, cognitive process skills) and
computational thinking skills (computational thinking, algorithmic thinking, mathematical understanding). In
addition, robotics technology supports the development of scientific concepts and scientific inquiry skills
(Williams et al., 2007). Therefore, coding education is essential to the education of people who are equipped
with 21st-century abilities, such as effective use of technology, problem-solving, and product development.
Theodoropoulus et al. (2017) reported that students participating in an educational robotics competition better
understood STEM concepts (Negrini & Giang, 2019). Coding contributes to individuals' acquisition of 21st-
century skills. The problem-solving (Lee et al., 2011; Selby & Woollard, 2013), computational thinking,
algorithmic thinking, spatial and analytical thinking skills of the students who learned to program were
improved (del Castillo et al., 2019; Demirer & Sak, 2016; Monroy-Hernández & Resnick, 2008; Shin et al.,
2013; Tsukamoto et al., 2017; Wing, 2006).

Then comes studies on applications in robotic coding teaching. These applications mainly involve science and
engineering, and Arduino and tablet applications are used in them. According to Catlin and Robertson (2012),
teaching algorithms and programming tools to students will improve their digital literacy, increase their interest
and attention to school and lessons, develop problem-solving and metacognitive skills, and increase their habits
of learning by doing and learning by teaching. In the last few years, many countries, seeing the value of
programming, computer science, and computational thinking, have tried to change the curriculum and integrate
coding into courses, which provides the required skill for computer programming (Duncan et al., 2014; Guven
et al., 2022). As a result, students can integrate courses through robotics and coding education, supporting their
cognitive thinking skills and learning. Jung and Won (2018) argue that studies should target how to adopt
robotics in school contexts and how to adapt robotics to the current curriculum of the courses. This situation
brings to mind the question of "how competent the teachers, who play an essential role in practice, are in robotic
knowledge and skills." A study conducted by Wong et al. (2015) to determine the difficulties of integrating
coding education into school programs revealed that teachers need training and have shortcomings regarding the
curriculum. In many countries, various educational activities are organized for teachers to disseminate
educational robotic activities in educational institutions (Kim et al., 2015).

The studies on affective characteristics focused on interest, motivation, and opinion. Robotics activities increase
interest (Curzon, 2014; Liang et al., 2013) and motivation (Álvarez & Larrañaga, 2015; Bazylev et al., 2014;
80 Seckin-Kapucu

Daher, 2022; Demirer & Sak, 2016) as they allow students to create their own products and support their
learning (Lin et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2013). The results of this study support the results in the literature.
However, some studies found no significant difference in students' interest, confidence, satisfaction, and
motivation levels according to the use of robots in education (McGill, 2012).

Recommendations
This study aims to examine different aspects of coding and robotics education studies and share their results and
suggestions with researchers. The following recommendations can be made as a result of this study. The results
of robotic coding studies in science education show that they mainly focus on cognitive skills. Although these
skills include some 21st-century skills, some other 21st-century skills were not addressed. Therefore, further
studies addressing today's popular skills, such as innovation, critical thinking, problem-solving, cooperation,
adaptation, initiative, leadership, responsibility, knowledge, media, and technology, are needed. In addition,
alongside 21st-century skills, these studies included computational skills, which are related to the mathematics
discipline. Therefore, there is a need for studies that include skills related to other areas of coding education as a
subject under STEM education (science [scientific research, scientific reasoning], technology [scientific
application and technical knowledge, effective use of resources, creativity, updated products, and systems], and
engineering [thinking about design, optimizing iteration, and optimizing]). In mathematics, studies on robotic
coding can address the subjects such as models and relationships, data literacy, and mathematical language. On
the other hand, studies on cognitive skills mainly involved the integration of coding into science and
engineering. Therefore, in science education, it is recommended to plan studies integrating robotic coding into
other fields (technology, engineering, mathematics). In addition, there is a need for studies that use other tools
used in coding education (Microsoft Small Basic, Alice, MIT App Inventor, and Scratch) in addition to Arduino
and Tablet applications. Furthermore, studies on different affective characteristics (attitude, self-efficacy
perceptions, self-efficacy beliefs, self-regulation, etc.) will be beneficial in terms of comprehensive coverage of
the subject. In addition, studies can be carried out to raise code literacy awareness among students.

Regarding the results of the robotic coding studies in science education, no studies were related to the
psychomotor domain. For this reason, it is recommended to include psychomotor characteristics in future
studies. The suggestions for robotic coding studies in science education were mostly related to applications and
future research. The integration of robotic coding was mentioned more in application suggestions. However,
there are no suggestions for curriculum development. Future studies should also address curriculum
development related to robotic coding.

The review of the studies in terms of their results revealed that they are mostly skill-oriented, whereas their
review in terms of suggestions revealed that they mainly included applications. Teachers play a significant role
in the implementation. From this point of view, in-service training on robotic coding applications should be
organized for teachers.

This study is limited to 15 articles from WOS and Scopus databases, published between 2015-2022 as full-text.
The current study systematically reviewed robotic coding studies in science education. In future studies,
researchers should analyze robotic coding studies in different fields and periods using other types of systematic
reviews like meta-synthesis or meta-analysis.

Scientific Ethics Declaration

The author declares that the scientific, ethical, and legal responsibility of this article published in the JESEH
journal belongs to the author.

References
Adams Becker, S., Freeman, A., Giesinger Hall, C., Cummins, M., & Yuhnke, B. (2016). NMC/CoSN horizon
report: 2016 K-12 edition. The New Media Consortium
Álvarez, A., & Larrañaga, M. (2016). Experiences incorporating lego mindstorms robots in the basic
programming syllabus: lessons learned. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 81(1), 117-129.
Arora, M. (2008). Design and development of friction compensator algorithm for one link robot (Master‟s
thesis). Thapar University, Patiala.
 J Educ Sci Environ Health 81

Aydeniz, M. & Bilican, K. (2017). STEM eğitiminde global gelişmeler ve Türkiye için çıkarımlar. S. Çepni
(Ed.), Kuramdan uygulamaya STEM+A+E eğitimi içinde (s. 69-90). Ankara: Pegem Akademi.
Bazylev, D., Margun, A., Zimenko, K., Kremlev, A., & Rukujzha, E. (2014). Participation in robotics
competition as motivation for learning. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 152, 835-840.
Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review.
Computers & Education, 58(3), 978–988. [Link]
Bers, M. (2008). Blocks to robots: Learning with technology in the early childhood classroom. New York:
Teachers College Press
Bers, M., Seddighin, S., & Sullivan, A. (2013). Ready for robotics: Bringing together the T and E of STEM in
early childhood teacher education. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 21(3), 355-377.
Bocconi, S., Chioccariello, A., Dettori, G., Ferrari, A., & Engelhardt, K. (2016). Developing computational
thinking in compulsory education. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Cassidy, M., & Puttick, G. (2022). “Because subjects don’t exist in a bubble”: Middle school teachers enacting
an interdisciplinary curriculum. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 31(2), 233-245.
Catlin, D. (2012, April). Maximizing the effectiveness of educational robotics through the use of assessment for
learning methodologies. Proceedings of 3rd International Workshop Teaching Robotics, Teaching with
Robotics, Integrating Robotics in School Curriculum (pp. 2–11). Trento, Italy.
Catlin, D., & Robertson, S. (2012, April). Using educational robots to enhance the performance of minority
students. In Proc. Int. Workshop Teaching Robotics Teaching with Robotics: Integrating Robotics in
School Curriculum, Riva del Garda, Italy.
Chiazzese, G., Arrigo, M., Chifari, A., Lonati, V., & Tosto, C. (2019, October). Educational robotics in primary
school: Measuring the development of computational thinking skills with the bebras tasks. In
Informatics (Vol. 6, No. 4, p. 43). MDPI.
Czerkawski, B. C., & Lyman, E. W. (2015). Exploring issues about computational thinking in higher education.
TechTrends, 59(2), 57–65. [Link]
Daher, W. (2022). Students’ Motivation to Learn Mathematics in the Robotics Environment. Computers in the
Schools, 1-22, [Link]
Davis, J., Mengersen, K., Bennett, S., & Mazerolle, L. (2014). Viewing systematic reviews and meta-analysis in
social research through different lenses. Springer Plus, 3, 511. [Link]
511.
del Castillo, A. M., Huertas, L. C. A., Herrera, E., Muñoz, M. A., Toledo, J. J., & Ramos, D. X. (2019).
Developing a teacher training curriculum including computational thinking skills. XIV Latin American
Conference on Learning Objects, At San José del Cabo, BSC, Mexico
Demirer, V., & Sak, N. (2016). Programming education and new approaches around the world and in Turkey.
Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 12(3), 521-546.
Duncan, C., Bell, T., & Tanimoto, S. (2014). Should your 8-year-old learn coding?. 9th Workshop in Primary
and Secondary Computing Education, Berlin, Germany.
Ezeamuzie, N. O., Leung, J. S., & Ting, F. S. (2022). Unleashing the potential of abstraction from cloud of
computational thinking: A systematic review of literature. Journal of Educational Computing
Research, 60(4), 877-905.
Francis, K., Bruce, C., Davis, B., Drefs, M., Hallowell, D., Hawes, Z., ... & Woolcott, G. (2017).
Multidisciplinary perspectives on a video case of children designing and coding for robotics. Canadian
Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 17(3), 165-178.
Fridberg, M. & Redfors, A. (2021). Teachers’ and children’s use of words during early childhood STEM
teaching supported by robotics, International Journal of Early Years Education, 1-15. [Link]
10.1080/09669760.2021.1892599
García-Carrillo, C., Greca, I. M., & Fernández-Hawrylak, M. (2021). Teacher perspectives on teaching the
STEM approach to educational coding and robotics in primary education. Education Sciences, 11(2),
64.
García-Peñalvo, F. J., Reimann, D., Tuul, M., Rees, A., & Jormanainen, I. (2016). An overview of the most
relevant literature on coding and computational thinking with emphasis on the relevant issues for
teachers. Belgium: TACCLE3 Consortium.
Guven, G., Kozcu Cakir, N., Sulun, Y., Cetin, G. & Guven, E. (2022) Arduino-assisted robotics coding
applications integrated into the 5E learning model in science teaching, Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 54(1), 108-126. [Link]
Guven, G., Kozcu Cakir, N., Sulun,Y., Cetin, G., & Guven, E. (2022) Arduino-assisted robotics coding
applications integrated into the 5E learning model in science teaching, Journal of Research on
Technology in Education, 54(1), 108-126. [Link]
82 Seckin-Kapucu

Henze, J., Schatz C., Malik, S., & Bresges, A. (2022). How might we raise interest in robotics, coding, artificial
intelligence, STEAM and sustainable development in university and on-the-job teacher training? Front.
Educ. 7:872637. [Link]
Hsia, C. H., Lai, C. F., & Su, Y. S. (2021). Impact of using ARCS model and problem-based leaning on human
interaction with robot and motivation. Library Hi Tech, 40(4), 963-975.
Johnson, J. (2003). Children, robotics and education. In Proceedings of 7th international symposium on
artificial life and robotics (Vol. 7, pp. 16–21), Oita, Japan
Johnson, L., Adams Becker, S., Estrada, V., & Freeman, A. (2015). NMC horizon report: 2015 higher education
edition. The New Media Consortium.
Jung, S. E., & Won, E. S. (2018). Systematic review of research trends in robotics education for young children.
Sustainability, 10(4), 905.
Kaygısız, G. M., Üzümcü, Ö., & Melike Uçar, F. (2020). The case of prospective teachers’ integration of
coding-robotics practices into science teaching with STEM approach. Elementary Education Online,
19(3), 1200-1213.
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.
Koray, A., & Duman, F. G. (2022). Subject-oriented educational robotics applications with Arduino in science
teaching: digital dynamometer activity in accordance with 5E instractional model. Science Activities,
59(4), 168-179. [Link]
Lau, W. W., & Yuen, A. H. (2011). Modelling programming performance: Beyond the influence of learner
characteristics. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1202–1213.
[Link]
Liang, H. N., Fleming, C., Man, K. L., & Tillo, T. (2013). A first introduction to programming for first-year
students at a Chinese university using LEGO MindStorms. Proceedings of 2013 IEEE International
Conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering, 233-238.
[Link]
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., ...Moher, D. (2009).
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate
health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151, W–65.
[Link]
Lin, C. H., Liu, E. Z. F., & Huang, Y. Y. (2012). Exploring parents‟ perceptions toward educational robots:
Gender and socio-economic difference. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(1), E31-E34
Liu, E. Z-F., Lin, C-H., Feng, H-C., & Hou, H-T. (2013). An analysis of teacherstudent interaction patterns in a
robotics course for kindergarten children: A pilot study. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology, 12(1), 9- 18.
Luo, F., Antonenko, P. D., & Davis, E. C. (2020). Exploring the evolution of two girls’ conceptions and
practices in computational thinking in science. Computers & Education, 146, 103759.
McGill, M. M. (2012). Learning to program with personal robots: Influences on student motivation. ACM
Transactions on Computing Education (TOCE), 12(1), 1-32.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., Altman, D., Antes, G., Atkins, D., Barbour, V., Barrowman,
N., Berlin, J. A., Clark, J., Clarke, M., Cook, D., D'Amico, R., Deeks, J. J., Devereaux, P. J., Dickersin,
K., Egger, M., Ernst, E., ... Tugwell, P. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and
meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement (Chinese edition). Journal of Chinese Integrative Medicine,
7(9), 889-896. [Link]
Monroy-Hernández, A., & Resnick, M. (2008). Empowering kids to create and share programmable media.
Interactions, 15(2), 50-53.
Mulrow, C. D. (1994). ‘Systematic reviews–rationale for systematic reviews’. British Medical Journal, 309
(6954), 597–599.
Negrini, L., & Giang, C. (2019). How do pupils perceive educational robotics as a tool to improve their 21st
century skills?. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 15(2), 77-87.
Negrini, L., & Giang, C. (2019). How do pupils perceive educational robotics as a tool to improve their 21st
century skills?. Journal of e-Learning and Knowledge Society, 15(2), 77-87.
Odacı, M. M., & Uzun, E. (2017). Okul öncesinde kodlama eğitimi ve kullanılabilecek araçlar hakkında bilişim
teknolojileri öğretmenlerinin görüşleri: Bir durum çalışması. 1. Uluslararası Bilgisayar ve Öğretim
Teknolojileri Sempozyumu, İnönü Üniversitesi, 718-725.
Okuyucu, M. O. (2019). Robotik kodlama eğitiminin lise öğrencilerinin üstbiliş ve yansıtıcı düşünme düzeyleri
üzerindeki etkisinin incelenmesi. Yayımlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi. Erzincan Binali Yıldırım
Üniversitesi, Erzincan.
 J Educ Sci Environ Health 83

Oxman, A. D, (1994). ‘Systematic reviewsfchecklists for review articles’. British Medical Journal, 309 (6955),
648–651.
Ozsen, T., Uslu, B., & Aypay, A. (2022). Strategy adaptation for sustainable quality management in
universities: a systematic literature review. Tertiary Education and Management, 1-23.
Papert, S. A. (1980). Mindstorms: Children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic books.
Partnership for 21st Century Skills. (2010). 21st century knowledge and skills in educator preparation. Tucson
AZ: Author. [Link]
Petticrew, M. & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic reviewsin the social sciences: a practical guide, Oxford:
Blackwell Publishing xv + 336pp.
Pila, S., Aladé, F., Sheehan, K. J., Lauricella, A. R., & Wartella, E. A. (2019). Learning to code via tablet
applications: An evaluation of Daisy the Dinosaur and Kodable as learning tools for young children.
Computers & Education, 128, 52-62.
Pila, S., Aladé, F., Sheehan, K. J., Lauricella, A. R., & Wartella, E. A. (2019). Learning to code via tablet
applications: An evaluation of Daisy the Dinosaur and Kodable as learning tools for young children.
Computers & Education, 128, 52-62.
Popay, J., Rogers, A., & Williams, G. (1998). Rationale and standards for the systematic review of qualitative
literature in health services research. Qualitative Health Research, 8(3), 341-351.
Prensky, M. (2008). Programming is the new literacy. Retrieved from [Link]
computer-programming.
Psycharis, S., & Kallia, M. (2017). The effects of computer programming on high school students’ reasoning
skills and mathematical self-efficacy and problem solving. Instructional Science, 45(5), 583–602.
[Link]
Robinson, R. (2005). Sports philanthropy: An analysis of the charitable foundations of major league teams.
Master Thesis. University of San Francisco.
Rogers, C. & Portsmore, M. (2004). Bringing engineering to elementary school. Journal of STEM Education:
Innovations and Research, 5(3), 17.
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.
Sayın, Z., & Seferoğlu, S. S. (2016, February). Coding education as a new 21st century skill and its effect on
educational policies. In Academic informatics conference, pp. 1–13.
Seale, C. (1999). The quality of qualitative research. London: SAGE.
Selby, C. C., & Woollard, J. (2013). Computational thinking: The developing definition. In Presented at the
18th annual conference on innovation and technology in computer science education, Canterbury.
Retrieved from: [Link]
Selby, C., & Woollard, J. (2013). Computational thinking: the developing definition.
[Link] bg_soton_eprints.pdf
Shin, S., Park, P., & Bae, Y. (2013). The effects of an information-technology gifted program on friendship
using scratch programming language and clutter. International Journal of Computer and
Communication Engineering, 2(3), 246.
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of
Business Research, 104, 333-339.
Spencer, L., Ritchie, J., Lewis, J., & Dillon, L. (2003). Quality in qualitative evaluation: A framework for
assessing research evidence. London: Cabinet Office.
Sun, L., & Zhou, D. (2022). Effective instruction conditions for educational robotics to develop programming
ability of K‐12 students: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning.
[Link]
Taslibeyaz, E., Kursun, E., & Karaman, S. (2020). How to develop computational thinking: A systematic review
of empirical studies. Informatics in Education, 19(4), 701-719.
Theodoropoulos, A., Antoniou, A., & Lepouras, G. (2017). Teacher and student views on educational robotics:
The Pan-Hellenic competition case. Application and Theory of Computer Technology, 2(4), 1-23.
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic
reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(1), 1-10.
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed
management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–
222. [Link]
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2012). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. John Wiley & Sons.
Tsukamoto, H., Oomori, Y., Nagumo, H., Takemura, Y., Monden, A., & Matsumoto, K. I. (2017). Evaluating
algorithmic thinking ability of primary schoolchildren who learn computer programming. IEEE
Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
84 Seckin-Kapucu

Turan, S., & Aydoğdu, F. (2020). Effect of coding and robotic education on pre-school children’s skills of
scientific process. Education and Information Technologies, 25(5), 4353-4363.
Uslu, B. (2020). Mentoring and role modelling through the perspective of academic intellectual leadership:
Voluntarily and institutionally. Research in Educational Administration and Leadership, 5(3), 921–
952. https:// doi. org/ 10. 30828/ real/ 2020.3.9
Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap: Why even our best schools don't teach the new survival skills
our children need-and what we can do about it. Basic Books.
Wang, X. C., Choi, Y., Benson, K., Eggleston, C., & Weber, D. (2021). Teacher’s role in fostering
preschoolers’ computational thinking: An exploratory case study. Early Education and Development,
32(1), 26-48, [Link]
Wei, C. W., Hung, I. C., Lee, L., & Chen, N. S. (2011). A Joyful classroom learning system with robot learning
companion for children to learn mathematics multiplication. Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology, 10(2), 11–23.
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.
Wing, J. (2006). Computational thinking. Communications of the ACM, 49(3), 33-35.
[Link]
Wong, G. K., Cheung, H. Y., Ching, E. C., & Huen, J. M. (2015, December). School perceptions of coding
education in K-12: A large scale quantitative study to inform innovative practices. In Teaching,
Assessment, and Learning for Engineering Conference, India
Wood, S. (2003). Robotics in the classroom: A teaching tool for K- 12 educators. Symposium of Growing up
with Science and Technology in the 21st Century, Virginia, ABD.
Yolcu, V., & Demirer, V. (2017). Eğitimde robotik kullanımı ile ilgili yapılan çalıĢmalara sistematik bir bakış.
SDU International Journal of Educational Studies, 4(2), 127-139.

Author(s) Information
Munise Seckin-Kapucu
Eskisehir Osmangazi University
Faculty of Education, Eskisehir/ TURKEY
Contact e-mail: muniseseckin@[Link]
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9202-2703