Effects of Robotic Coding Supported Design-Based Science Instruction on Students’ Science Process Skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to investigate the effects of robotic coding supported Design-Based Science Instruction (RC-DBSI) on sixth-grade students’ science process skills. One-group pretest-posttest experimental design was employed in the study. Participants consisted of thirty-nine sixth-grade students enrolled in a public middle school located in the eastern part of Turkey. The implementation phase lasted for five weeks during which a Force and Motion unit was being taught. The engineering design process, including the steps of determining the problem, researching possible solutions, determining the most suitable solution, making the prototype, and testing the prototype (Wendell et al., 2010), was followed in the study. Robotic coding activities were incorporated into the “researching possible solutions” step of DBSI. Twin Science Kit was distributed to the participants, and they engaged in robotic coding activities via this kit. Students completed Science Process Skills Test as a pretest and posttest. Paired samples t-test results demonstrated that being exposed to RC-DBSI improved the students’ science process skills. Based on the study's findings, some suggestions were presented for science teachers and teacher education programs. Keywords: Design-Based Science Instruction, robotic coding, science process skills, science education, middle school Cette étude avait pour but d'examiner les effets de l'enseignement des sciences basé sur la conception et soutenu par le codage robotique (RC-DBSI) sur les compétences en matière de processus scientifique des élèves de sixième année. L'étude a utilisé un modèle expérimental prétest/posttest avec un groupe. Trente-neuf élèves de sixième année inscrits dans une école publique située dans la partie orientale de la Turquie ont participé à l’étude. La phase de mise en œuvre a duré cinq semaines au cours desquelles une unité portant sur la force et mouvement a été enseignée. L’étude a suivi le processus de conception technique, qui comprend les étapes de détermination du problème, de recherche des solutions possibles, de détermination de la solution la plus appropriée, de fabrication du prototype et de test du prototype (Wendell et al., 2010). Les activités de codage robotique ont été intégrées à l'étape "recherche de solutions possibles" de l'enseignement des sciences basé sur la conception. L’ensemble de Twin Science a été distribué aux participants, qui se sont livrés à des activités de codage robotique avec cet ensemble. Les élèves ont passé un test sur les compétences en matière de processus scientifique en tant que prétest et posttest. Les résultats du test t pour échantillons appariés ont démontré que l'exposition à la RC-DBSI a amélioré les compétences des élèves en matière de processus scientifique. Sur la base des résultats de l'étude, certaines suggestions ont été présentées aux professeurs de sciences et aux programmes de formation des enseignants. Mots clés : Design-Based Science Instruction, codage robotique, compétences en matière de processus scientifique, enseignement des sciences, école secondaire
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".