Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Analyzing the effects of Arduino applications on students’ opinions, attitude and self-efficacy in programming class

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine IT teacher candidates’ attitudes, self-efficacy and opinions about educational robotic-based programming education. The participants of this study consisted of 2nd class students in Computer Education and Instructional Technologies department of a university in Turkey. The study group of the research consisted of undergraduate students who takes C programming course, and who also undertook traditional teaching as well as weekly Arduino applications that matched with weekly topics. Programming attitude and self-efficacy perception scales were used to specify students’ attitude towards the course and self-efficacy perception. In addition to quantitative data, to explain the entire process from students’ perspectives, a semi-structured interview form developed by the researchers was applied. The study findings showed that using micro-controllers such as Arduino for laboratory applications in programming education was of a positive effect on students’ attitudes, which was also supported by interview findings. Accordingly, almost all of the students described this application as engaging, interesting, exciting, and intriguing. The changes in students’ self-efficacy perception towards programming were also investigated and the findings demonstrated that there was no statistically significant difference, which was proven by the quantitative data obtained from the interviews. In this sense, although students perceived programming education with Arduino as positive, they were careful about this education model in terms of programming knowledge and skill development.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

References

  • Altun, A., & Mazman, S. G. (2012). Programlamaya ilişkin öz yeterlilik algısı ölçeğinin Türkçe formumun geçerlilik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Eğitimde ve Psikolojide Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Dergisi, 3(2), 297–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 – TOJET, 8(1).

  • Balch, T., Summet, J., Blank, D., Kumar, D., Guzdial, M., O’hara, K., & Jackson, J. (2008). Designing personal robots for education: Hardware, software, and curriculum. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 7(2), 5–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Başer, M. (2013). Bilgisayar programlamaya karşı tutum ölçeği geliştirme çalışması. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies, 6(6), 199–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Başer, M., & Geban, Ö. (2007). Effectiveness of conceptual change instruction on understanding of heat and temperature concepts. Research in Science & Technological Education, 25(1), 115–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beug, A. (2012). Teaching introductory programming concepts: A comparison of scratch and Arduino (Master's thesis,  California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California). Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.calpoly.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1827&context=theses

  • Çetin, I., & Özden, M. Y. (2015). Development of computer programming attitude scale for university students. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 23(5), 667–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chancharoen, R., Sripakagorn, A., & Maneeratana, K. (2014). An Arduino kit for learning mechatronics and its scalability in semester projects. In 2014 IEEE International conference on Teaching, Assessment and Learning for Engineering (TALE) (pp. 505–510). 8–10 December, Wellington, New Zealand: IEEE.

  • Crawley, E., Malmqvist, J., Östlund, S., Brodeur, D., & Edström, K. (2014). Rethinking engineering education. Cham: Springer.

  • Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). USA: Pearson Education Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, K., Larzon, L., & Ljunggren, K. (2010). Self-efficacy in programming among STS students. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f51c/4dc92ffe4e356a9d1f7a851dfc1784e80e99.pdf.

  • Dean, B. J., & Rebecca, F. (2009). Using arduino for introductory programming courses: A tutorial. Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 12, 129–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fesakis, G., & Serafeim, K. (2009). Influence of the familiarization with" scratch" on future teachers' opinions and attitudes about programming and ICT in education. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 41(3), 258–262.

  • Fessakis, G., Gouli, E., & Mavrodi, E. (2013). Problem solving by 5–6 years old kindergarten children in a computer programming environment: A case study. Computers and Education, 63(2013), 87–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grasel, J., Vonnegut, W., & Dodds, Z. (2010, March). Bitwise biology: Crossdisciplinary physical computing atop the Arduino. In 2010 AAAI spring symposium series.

  • Günüç, S., Odabaşı, H. F., & Kuzu, A. (2013). 21. Yüzyıl öğrenci özelliklerinin öğretmen adayları tarafından tanımlanması: Bir Twitter uygulaması. Eğitimde Kuram ve Uygulama, 9(4), 436–455.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guo, G., & Yue, W. (2012). Autonomous platoon control allowing range-limited sensors. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, 61(7), 2901–2912.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, N., Tejovanth, N., & Murthy, P. (2012). Learning by creating: Interactive programming for Indian high schools. In 2012 IEEE International Conference on Technology Enhanced Education (ICTEE) (pp 1–3). Kerala, India, 3–5 Jan. 2012: IEEE.

  • Han, J. H., Jo, M. H., Jones, V., & Jo, J. H. (2008). Comparative study on the educational use of home robots for children. Journal of Information Processing Systems, 4(4), 159–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hertzog, P. E., & Swart, A. J. (2016). Arduino – enabling engineering students to obtain academic success in a design-based module. In 2016 IEEE Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) (pp. 66–73). 11–13 April, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates: IEEE.

  • Hoffer, B. M. (2012). Satisfying STEM education using the Arduino microprocessor in C Programming (Doctoral dissertation, East Tennessee State University). Retrieved from https://dc.etsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2665&context=etd

  • Jamieson, P. (2011). Arduino for teaching embedded systems. Are computer scientists and engineering educators missing the boat? In Proceedings of the International conference on Frontiers in Education: Computer Science and Computer Engineering (FECS) (p. 1). Jul 29- Aug 01 2019, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jawawi, D. N., Mamat, R., Ridzuan, F., Khatibsyarbini, M., & Zaki, M. Z. M. (2015). Introducing computer programming to secondary school students using mobile robots. In Control conference (ASCC), 2015 10th Asian (pp. 1–6). 31 May - 3 June 2015, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia: IEEE.

  • Jenkins, T. (2002). On the difficulty of learning to program. In Proceedings of the 3rd annual conference of the LTSN Centre for Information and Computer Sciences, 4(2002), 53-86. 27-29 Aug 2002, Loughborough, UK: LTSN-ICS.

  • Junior, L. A., Neto, O. T., Hernandez, M. F., Martins, P. S., Roger, L. L., & Guerra, F. A. (2013). A low-cost and simple arduino-based educational robotics kit. Cyber Journals: Multidisciplinary Journals in Science and Technology, Journal of Selected Areas in Robotics and Control (JSRC), December edition, 3(12), 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalelioğlu, F., & Gülbahar, Y. (2014). The effects of teaching programming via scratch on problem solving skills: A discussion from learners’ perspective. Informatics in Education, 13(1), 33–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karasar, N. (2000). Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaucic, B., & Asic, T. (2011). Improving introductory programming with scratch? In Proceeding of the 34th MIPRO International Conference, pp. 1095–1100. 23- 27 May 2011, Opatija, Croatia: IEEE.

  • Kim, S. H., & Jeon, J. W. (2008). Introduction for freshmen to embedded systems using LEGO Mindstorms. IEEE Transactions on Education, 52(1), 99–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korkmaz, Ö. (2012). The impact of critical thinking and logical-mathematical intelligence on algorithmic design skills. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 46(2), 173–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuş, E. (2009). Nicel-Nitel Araştırma Teknikleri [Quantitative-Qualitative Research Methods]. Ankara: Anı Yayıncılık.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lamb, A., & Johnson, L. (2011). Scratch: Computer programming for 21st century learners. Teacher Librarian, 38(4), 64–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). A typology of mixed methods research designs. Quality and Quantity, 43, 265–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • López-Rodríguez, F. M., & Cuesta, F. (2016). Andruino-A1: Low-cost educational mobile robot based on android and Arduino. Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 81(1), 63–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (1976). Some conditions of meaningful learning for computer programming: Advance organizers and subject control of frame order. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(2), 143–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mazman, S. G., & Altun, A. (2013). Programlama–I Dersinin BÖTE Bölümü Öğrencilerinin Programlamaya İlişkin Öz Yeterlilik Algıları Üzerine Etkisi. Journal of Instructional Technologies & Teacher Education, 2(3), 24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrick, K. E. (2010). An empirical evaluation of puzzle-based learning as an interest approach for teaching introductory computer science. IEEE Transactions on Education, 53(4), 677–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moyer, P. S. (2001). Are we having fun yet? How teachers use manipulatives to teach mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47(2), 175–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mubin, O., Stevens, C. J., Shahid, S., Al Mahmud, A., & Dong, J. J. (2013). A review of the applicability of robots in education. Journal of Technology in Education and Learning, 1, 209–0015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozoran, D., Cagiltay, N., & Topalli, D. (2012). Using scratch in introduction to programming course for engineering students. In 2nd International Engineering Education Conference (IEEC2012) (vol. 2, pp. 125–132). 31st October to 3rd November 2012, Antalya, Turkey.

  • Park, J. S., & Lenskiy, A. (2014). Mobile robot platform for improving experience of learning programming languages. Journal of Automation and Control Engineering, 2(3), 265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods : integrating theory and practice. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.

  • Qin, H. (2009). Teaching computational thinking through bioinformatics to biology students. In Proceedings of the 40th ACM technical symposium on Computer science education (pp. 188–191). 4-7 March, 2009, Chattanooga TN USA.

  • Resnick, M., Martin, F., Berg, R., Borovoy, R., Colella, V., Kramer, K., & Silverman, B. (1998). Digital manipulatives: New toys to think with. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 281–287). April, 1998, Los Angeles, California, USA: ACM Press.

  • Richard, G. T. (2008). Employing physical computing in education: How teachers and students utilized physical computing to develop embodied and tangible learning objects. The International Journal of Technology, Knowledge and Society, 4(3), 93–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riedo, F., Rétornaz, P., Bergeron, L., Nyffeler, N., & Mondada, F. (2012). A two years informal learning experience using the thymio robot. In Advances in Autonomous Mini Robots (pp. 37-48). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

  • Rubio, M. A., Hierro, C. M., & Pablo, A. P. D. M. (2013). Using Arduino to enhance computer programming courses in science and engineering. In Proceedings of EDULEARN13 conference (pp. 1–3). 1-3 July 2013, Barcelona, Spain: IATED.

  • Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52(3/4), 591–611.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Shiloh, M., & Banzi, M. (2014). Make: getting started with Arduino. 3rd Edition. Sebastopol, California: Maker Media, Inc.

  • Sohn, W. (2014). Design and evaluation of computer programming education strategy using Arduino. Advanced Science and Technology Letters, 66(1), 73–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, D., Zhang, C., & Wang, H. (2011). T-maze: A tangible programming tool for children. In Proceedings of the 10th International conference on interaction design and children (pp. 127–135). June 2011, Ann Arbor Michigan: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM).

  • Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2005). Sosyal Bilimlerde Nitel Araştırma Yöntemleri (5th ed.). Ankara: Seçkin Yayınları.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Dokuz Eylül University Scientific Research Center (Project no: 2017.KB.EGT.006).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computer Education and Instructional Technology, Dokuz Eylul University Faculty of Education, Buca, Izmir, Turkey

    Kürşat Arslan & Zafer Tanel

Authors
  1. Kürşat Arslan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Zafer Tanel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kürşat Arslan.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Fig. 4
figure 4figure 4figure 4

Photographs from application: application photographs are added here with the permission of the students

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Arslan, K., Tanel, Z. Analyzing the effects of Arduino applications on students’ opinions, attitude and self-efficacy in programming class. Educ Inf Technol 26, 1143–1163 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10290-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-020-10290-5

Keywords