CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 11Educational Robotics and EngineeringInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsEducational Methods and Outcomes

Effects of robotic module‐supported experimental activities with the cooperative learning method on student achievement, 21st‐century skills, and students' opinions

Open access
Avcı, Filiz·2024·Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
DOI 10.1111/jcal.13030
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background Study: Developments in science and technology, have created a need for technology‐supported learning environments. Robotics is a technology widely used in science education. Collaborative learning is one of the methods used in education based on the constructivist approach. Using robotic and cooperative learning together is a new and rare study approach. The study utilizes cooperative learning and robotics together. Past studies have investigated applications combining collaborative learning, problem‐based or project‐based learning with flipped classrooms. However, we need more evidence on how cooperative learning methods affect learning in environments supported by robotic modules. Objectives: This study investigated the effects of robotic module‐supported experimental activities with the cooperative learning method on student achievement, 21st‐century skills, and students' opinions. Methods: The sample of this study was 6th‐grade students (n = 61). The study utilized a mixed method approach. The quantitative research phase of the study employed a quasi‐experimental design with an experimental and a control group. The qualitative research phase of the study utilized a case study design. Results and Conclusions: The experimental group had significantly higher mean scores than the control group. This result shows that robotic module‐supported experimental activities with the cooperative learning method are more effective at improving student achievement and 21st‐century skills than the current curriculum.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jcal.13030

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 48

  1. Aifan, H. (2022). Implementing a project-based collaborative learning approach using PowerPoint to improve students' 21st-century skills. E-Learning and Digital Media, 19(3), 258–273.
  2. Alimisis, D. (2013). Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science and Technology Education, 6(1), 63–71.
  3. Ardianty, A. E. C., Parlan, P., & Yahmin, Y. (2023). IDEAL (identify, define, explore, act, look back) metacognitive-STAD cooperative learning to improve students' self-efficacy and problem-solving ability. J-PEK (Jurnal Pembelajaran Kimia), 8(1), 8–19.
  4. Artawan, P. (2023). The effectiveness of group investigation cooperative learning model on students' science learning achievement. Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA, 9(6), 4544–4550.
  5. Aslan, S. (2022). Using cooperative learning and the flipped classroom model with prospective teachers to increase digital literacy self-efficacy, techno pedagogical education, and 21st-century skills competence. International Journal of Progressive Education, 18(3), 121–137.
  6. Atmatzidou, S., Markelis, I., & Demetriadis, S. (2008). The use of LEGO mindstorms in elementary and secondary education: Games to trigger learning. In Workshop proceedings of simpar intl. conf. on simulation, modeling and programming for autonomous robots, Venice (Italy) (pp. 22–30).
  7. Barr, V., & Stephenson, C. (2011). Bringing computational thinking to K-12: What is involved and what is the role of the computer science education community? ACM in Roads, 2(1). (pp:48-54).
  8. Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978–988.
  9. Bodsworth, H., & Goodyear, V. A. (2017). Barriers and facilitators to using digital technologies in the cooperative learning model in physical education. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 22(6), 563–579.
  10. Botelho, S. S., Braz, L. G., & Rodrigues, R. N. (2012). Exploring creativity and sociability with an accessible educational robotic kit. In Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on Robotics in Education (RiE 2012), Prague, Czech Republic (pp. 55-60).
  11. Cameron, R. G. (2005). Mindstorms Robolab: Developing science concepts during a problem-based learning club. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. The University of Toronto.
  12. Chambers, J., Carbonaro, M., & Rex, M. (2007). Scaffolding knowledge construction through robotic technology: A middle school case study. Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, 6, 55–70.
  13. Costa, M. F., & Fernandes, J. (2004). Growing up with robots. In Proceedings of Hsci.
  14. Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed approaches ( 4th ed.). Sage.
  15. Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84(3), 287–312.
  16. Erdoğan, Ö. (2019). Robotik lego uygulamaların fen bilgisi öğretmen adaylarının 21. Yüzyıl becerileri üzerindeki etkilerininin celenmesi (Master's thesis). Amasya Üniversitesi.
  17. 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.
  18. İnal, Z. & Aydın, A. (2015). The effect of using models on academic achievement and continuance of knowledge in teaching of the matter and heat unit. Ahi Evran University Journal of Education Faculty, 16(3), 19–37.
  19. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, J. E. (2016). In A. Kocabaş (Ed.), İşbirlikli öğrenme elkitabı (1. Basım ed.). Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.
  20. Jowallah, R. (2008). Using technology-supported learning to develop active learning in higher education. US-China Education Review, 5(12), 42–46.
  21. Kabátová, M., & Pekárová, J. (2010). Lessons learned with LEGO mindstorms: From beginner to teaching robotics. Group, 10(12), 1–6.
  22. Kang, M., Kim, B., Kim, B., & You, H. (2013). Developing an instrument to measure 21° century skills for elementary students. The Korean Journal of Educational Methodology Studies, 25(2), 373–402.
  23. Kotluk, N., & Kocakaya, S. (2015). 21.yüzyıl becerilerinin gelişiminde dijital öykülemeler: Ortaöğretim öğrencilerinin görüşlerinin incelenmesi. Eğitim Ve Öğretim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 4(2), 354–363.
  24. Koç-Şeno, I., & Büyük, U. (2015). Science and technology laboratory applications supported by robotic: Robo lab Turkish studies international periodical for the languages. Literature and History of Turkish, 10(3), 201.
  25. Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., Jochems, W., & Buuren, H. (2007). Measuring perceived sociability of computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Computers & Education, 49(2), 176–192.
  26. Kubilinskiene, S., Zilinskiene, I., Dagiene, V., & Sinkevičius, V. (2017). Applying robotics in school education: A systematic review. BJMC, 5, 50–69.
  27. Kutu, H., & Sözbilir, M. (2011). The teaching of chemistry in our life unit in the 9th-grade chemistry course with a life-based ARC steaching model. OndokuzMayis University Journal of Faculty of Education, 30(1), 29–62.
  28. Laar, E. V., Deursen, A. J. V., Dijk, J. A. V., & Haan, J. D. (2017). The relation between 21st-century skills and digital skills: A systematic literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 577–588. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.010 · DOI · Paper page
  29. Lei, Z., Ismail, L., Razali, F., & Ghazali, N. (2023). A literature review on cooperative learning to improve EFL students' learning motivation. International Journal of Professional Business Review, 8(6), 49.
  30. Lopez, J., Myller, N., & Sutinen, E. (2004). Educational robotics in algorithm concretization. In International conference on engineering education and research “progress through partnership” (pp. 283–291).
  31. Miglino, O., Lund, H. H., & Cardaci, M. (1999). Robotics as an educational tool. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 10(1), 25–47.
  32. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook ( 2nd ed.). Sage.
  33. Mosley, P., Ardito, G., & Scollins, L. (2016). Robotic cooperative learning promotes student STEM interest. American Journal of Engineering Education, 7(2), 117–128.
  34. Naik, R., & Mandal, I. (2020). Robotic simulation experience in undergraduate medical education: A perspective. Journal of Robotic Surgery, 14, 793–794.
  35. National Research Council. (2012). National science education standards. National Academy Press.
  36. Rasanti, N., Tabroni, I., & Wahyuni, D. (2022). Increasing motivation and learning achievement of Fiqh through the STAD type cooperative learning model. Indonesian Journal of Applied and Industrial Sciences (ESA), 1(1), 29–36.
  37. Ribeiro, C. R., Costa, M. F. M., & Pereira-Coutinho, C. (2009). Robotics in child storytelling. In 6th international conference on hands-on science science for all. Quest for Excellence.
  38. Siew, N. M., Chin, M. K., & Sombuling, A. (2017). The effects of problem-based learning with cooperative learning on preschoolers' scientific creativity. Journal of Baltic Science Education, 16(1), 100–112.
  39. Sullivan, F. R. (2008). Robotics and science literacy: Thinking skills, science process skills and systems understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 373–394.
  40. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.).
  41. Tavakoli, Y., & Soltani, A. (2014). The effect of cooperative learning on students' social skills in the experimental science course. Journal of Education and Practice, 5(7), 36–44.
  42. Thomas, H., & Martina, D. (2022). Application of cooperative learning model in increasing Students' motivation, learning participation and creativity. Educativo: Jurnal Pendidikan, 1(1), 314–319.
  43. Torrijo, F. J., Garzón-Roca, J., Cobos, G., & Eguibar, M. Á. (2021). Combining project-based learning and cooperative learning strategies in a geotechnical engineering course. Education Sciences, 11(9), 467.
  44. Tran, V. D. (2014). The effects of cooperative learning on academic achievement and knowledge retention. International Journal of Higher Education, 3(2), 131–140.
  45. Tran, V. D., & Lewis, R. (2012). The effects of jigsaw learning on students' attitudes in a Vietnamese higher education classroom. International Journal of Higher Education, 1(2), 9–20.
  46. Veenman, S., van Benthum, N., Bootsma, D., Van Dieren, J., & Van der Kemp, N. (2002). Cooperative learning and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(1), 87–103.
  47. Vollstedt, A. M. (2005). Using robotics to increase student knowledge and interest in science, technology, engineering, and math, a Master Thesis of Science in Mechanical Engineering, University of Nevada, Reno.
  48. Yunus, M., Setyosari, P., Utaya, S., & Kuswandi, D. (2021). The influence of online project collaborative learning and achievement motivation on problem-solving ability. European Journal of Educational Research, 10(2), 813–823.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Avcı, F.
Affiliations
Istanbul University-Cerrahpaşa (TR)
Corresponding author
Avcı, Filiz
ORCID
Avcı, Filiz
Venue
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2024-06-12
Volume
40
Issue
5
Pages
2325-2338
ISSN
  • 0266-4909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2729
DOI
10.1111/jcal.13030
OpenAlex
W4399555505
Cited by
11
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8
FWCI
1.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Educational Robotics and Engineering
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Methods and Outcomes
Keywords
educational robotics, cooperative learning, science education, academic performance, 21st century skills, constructivist learning, sixth grade students, student perceptions, technology-enhanced learning environments

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review