Metaphoric perceptions of pre-service teachers about ‘LEGO Robotic Instructional Practices,’ ‘Augmented Reality’ and ‘Flipped Classroom’ concepts

Abstract

The aim of this study is to reveal perceptions of pre-service teachers about ‘LEGO robotic instructional practices,’ ‘augmented reality’ and ‘flipped classroom’ concepts through metaphors. The study is descriptive research that was conducted as a survey model. The study group consists of 37 pre-service teachers studying the undergraduate programme of Science Teaching, Faculty of Education of a university in the Western Black Sea Region in the spring semester of the academic year 2016–2017. A form consisting of three open-ended questions was used as a data collection tool during the study. The data acquired were analyzed through content analysis method. Following the study, 15 different metaphors created in relation to the LEGO robotic instructional practices concept were categorized as ‘edutainment tool,’ ‘a technological tool’ and a ‘development tool,’ while 24 different metaphors created in relation to the augmented reality concept were categorized as ‘Perception Of Reality’, ‘A Technological Tool’, ‘Change/Transformation Tool’ and ‘Entertainment Tool’. Moreover, 25 different metaphors created in relation to the flipped classroom concept were classified in two categories as a ‘form of education’ and ‘an education shaping tool’. Moreover, almost all of the metaphors created were observed to have positive features.

Keywords

LEGO robotics augmented reality flipped classroom pre-service teachers metaphor

Introduction

The rapid developments achieved in technology in the recent years have significantly influenced all systems of contemporary societies; the tools presented by technology have begun to take their place among the indispensable elements of our lives. The education system, without doubt, is among the systems influenced by those developments. The considerable influence of the use of technology on our daily lives has brought along the requirement that the technologies that can be used in learning-teaching environments must adapt themselves accordingly. Especially after constructivist learning and student-centred learning have become the focus of interest, the use of instructional technologies in today’s educational environments has also become intense (Ugur Erdogmus & Cagiltay, 2013). The current time period is the age of more realistic technologies, providing students with opportunities to gain much more experience and increasing cooperation (Turan et al., 2016). In this sense, ‘robotic instructional practices’, ‘augmented reality’ and ‘flipped classroom model’ embodying the said characteristic features are among the technology-based popular instructional practices. The mentioned practices are also addressed as the technological developments of the recent years in Horizon Report which is published regularly by The New Media Consortium (Adams Becker et al., 2017) and included among the major developments in the field of educational technologies (Johnson et al., 2015; Johnson et al., 2016). Furthermore, the importance of these practices is underlined in the sense that they enable individuals to associate knowledge with their real lives and allow for an active learning environment

The integration of these technologies into learning environments will continue in line with the ongoing technological development and renewal, and it is emphasized that what is important is to train the trainers who will effectively implement the technologies in a frame of precise objectives (Cakiroglu, 2016). Thus, views of pre-service teachers on developing technologies should be analyzed since they are teachers of the future (Kahyaoglu et al., 2017). As a powerful cognitive tool in determining perceptions of these and similar technologies, the use of metaphors is considered an important method (Karakoc Ozturk & Dagistanlioglu, 2018). Moreover, metaphors created by students are regarded as an effective tool to examine significant aspects of their views (Akyol, 2017).

Metaphors are cognitive models enabling individuals to interpret a phenomenon through another phenomenon (Lakoff & Johnson, 2005; Saban, 2008). Strenski (1989) and Fidan (2014) suggest that metaphors in our minds have an effect that shapes our attitudes and behaviours, and Lakoff (1993) underlines that metaphors are a ‘way of thinking’, making it possible to attribute deep meanings to a concept beyond describing such a concept by using a superficially similar concept. Besides, metaphors enable us to clarify particular situations that previously went unnoticed and to see different aspects of them as well as to reapprehend an object or an event by way of association to another conceptual network of the semantic domain (Taylor, 1984). Metaphors and metaphorical thinking are highly important not only as mechanisms by which individuals attribute a meaning to their own worlds and daily lives but also in the aspect of their role in revealing ideas in instructional terms (Botha, 2009). Metaphors in education are pedagogical tools that help in describing abstract concepts in a concrete way (Singh, 2010). In this sense, students’ interpretation of abstract concepts, which they find difficult to understand and express, may be considered an aspect of learning by associating them to metaphors (Beldag & Gecit, 2017).

Metaphors are of particular importance as they set the perceptions, beliefs and tendencies of pre-service teachers and contribute to their professional/vocational development (Noyes, 2004). There are a large number of studies evidencing that metaphors have been often used in recent years to identify the perceptions of pre-service teachers (Ersen, 2016; Gecit & Gencer, 2011; Karabay, 2016; Koc, 2014; Ma & Gao, 2017; Onen Ozturk & Aglarci, 2017; Saglam Kaya, 2017; Sahin & Sabanci, 2018; Tok, 2018). Nevertheless, implementation of technology-based instructional practices such as robotic instructional practices, flipped classroom models and augmented reality and adaptation of such practices as required by user views are deemed to be essential. Accordingly, as pre-service teachers are the primary future implementers and instructors of the said practices, it is suggested that their perceptions on these practices should be examined (Cukurbasi et al., 2018). There are a limited number of studies in the literature that address metaphors relating to new and rather specific technologies, such as flipped classroom, augmented reality and robotics (Cetintas & Avcu, 2017); it has been observed that the studies mainly address general concepts such as science (Biyikli et al., 2014; Kiral, 2017; Senel & Aslan, 2014; Uslu et al., 2016), technology (Arslan & Zengin, 2017; Karacam & Aydin, 2014; Karakoyun, 2017; Koc, 2013; Korkmaz & Unsal, 2016), the Internet (Suer et al., 2017) and social media (Fidan, 2014; Koseoglu, 2018; Sarac, 2018). Therefore, it is important to identify metaphors relating to current and developing technologies in terms of instructional inference-making on positive and negative tendencies of pre-service teachers towards such technologies, meanings they ascribe, and their status in using such technologies and integrating them to learning environments. In this context, views of pre-service teachers were referred to and the following three innovative technologies are addressed in the study, through the brief definitions, assumptions and instructional aspects below.

LEGO robotic instructional practices (LRIP)

LEGO is a kind of toy consisting of pieces in different colours that can be joined together to create almost any object. The use of robotic systems, which are created in instructional environments by joining such pieces with a programmable LEGO piece and various sensors and motors for a particular purpose, is referred to as LRIP (Cukurbasi & Kiyici, 2018). Robotic instructional media such as LRIP improve innovation skills and the creativity of students (Eguchi, 2014; Erdogan et al., 2013), enrich critical thinking and problem-solving skills of students during robotic activities (Hinton, 2017) and, it is noted that robotic activities provide a great contribution to learning abstract science concepts (Erdogan et al., 2013). Moreover, robotic activities contribute to the development of communication and cooperation skills (Eguchi, 2016). The study carried out by Cam et al. (2017) on LRIP, which stands out as one of the most innovative and popular robotic platforms (Hinton, 2017), points to the considerable increase in the number of studies on LRIP in related fields. Yolcu and Demirer (2017) reviewed 45 studies on the use of robotic technologies between the years 2007–2017, which were seen to have most commonly employed LEGO Mindstorms products as the material. Thus, it is noted that as the prospective LRIP instructors, the eager and willing attitude of pre-service teachersfor LRIP is a crucial factor for future instructional activities (Cukurbasi et al., 2018).

Augmented reality (AR)

AR is a technology by which the real world and virtual images are joined, and a simultaneous interaction is ensured between real and virtual objects (Carmigniani et al., 2011). Kounavis et al. (2012) addresses AR as a visualization technique combining computer-based information with physical media. Fidan (2018) describes AR as a technology, which combines the real world with digital media to augment the user’s perception of reality. The AR concept in the literature is usually confused with the virtual reality (VR) concept. As a matter of fact, AR is a variation of VR and what distinguishes AR from VR is that AR is based on the real-world environment (Azuma, 1997). AR technology is becoming widespread in the field of education as in many other fields, thanks to its fascinating structure and the opportunities it offers. Also, the study by Kiyici (2018), which reviews the studies carried out on AR, indicates that there has been an increasing trend, year by year, in studies premised on this technology in the field of educational sciences.

AR is used in the visualisation of complicated course subjects for better understanding (Wu et al., 2013; Yoon et al., 2017), thus ensuring a more entertaining and interesting class (Akcayir & Akcayir, 2017; Tomi & Rambli, 2013), representing abstract concepts in concrete form (Cai et al., 2014; Fidan, 2018; Wojciechowski & Cellary, 2013), teaching abstract concepts (Abdusselam, 2014; Lee, 2012), and safely introducing dangerous experiments (Cai et al., 2014). Moreover, AR technology contributes to the realization of permanent learning by offering a real learning experience in which more senses are incorporated (Saltan & Aslan, 2017).

Flipped classroom (FC)

FC is a system in which students complete certain online pre-learning activities (usually watching videos that address brief and important points) so that they prepare in advance for instructional activities structured within the classroom (Reidsema et al., 2017). FC enhances the interaction of students with their teachers and peers, provides the opportunity to pause and re-play the video records prepared by teachers, encourages students to study and helps in recording all student activities (Bergman & Sams, 2012). In addition, it is emphasized that FC practice is perceived by students as a useful instructional experience, and FC involves access to information, which assists students in learning, assessment and feedback, and structuring of information (Awidi & Paynter, 2019). Studies implemented at various educational levels in the literature predominantly show that the model improves learning outcomes (Awidi & Paynter, 2019; Cukurbasi & Kiyici, 2018; Debbag, 2018; Gregorious, 2017; Saglam & Arslan, 2018; Veeramani et al., 2015; Zhamanov et al., 2018).

Purpose and questions of the study

In light of the foregoing explanations and on the basis of the relevant literature, the aim of this study is to reveal the perceptions of pre-service teachers studying in the undergraduate programme in science teaching about ‘AR’, ‘LRIP’ and ‘FC’ concepts through metaphors. In this context, answers are sought for the following questions:

What are the metaphors which pre-service science teachers have in respect of the ‘LRIP’, ‘AR’ and ‘FC’ concepts?

Under which categories the metaphors which pre-service science teachers produce in respect of the ‘LRIP’, ‘AR’ and ‘FC’ concepts can be classified?

Methodology

This is a descriptive study, which was conducted in survey model.

Study group

The study group consisted of 37 pre-service teachers studying the undergraduate programme of Science Teaching, Faculty of Education of a university in the Western Black Sea Region in the spring semester of the academic year 2016–2017. In this sense, undergraduate students who enrolled in an elective course on the use of technology in science teaching and voluntarily participated in the study were included in the study. Data on the demographic characteristics of pre-service teachers are given in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics.

Department	Class	Gender	F	%	Age	Total
Science Education	4	Female	21	56.75	21–29	37
Science Education	4	Male	16	43.24	21–26

The pre-service teachers implemented theoretical and practical activities in relation to the use of LRIP, AR, FC, various instructional techniques and their integration to their courses. By the end of the semester, the pre-service teachers were given information about metaphors and were asked to voluntarily fill out the open-ended form to reveal their metaphorical perceptions as to LRIP, AR and FC. Out of 39 pre-service teachers, 37 participated in the study.

Collection of data

In order to reveal metaphorical perceptions of the pre-service teachers who took part in the study, a form consisting of three open-ended questions such as ‘LEGO robotic instructional practices are like . . . because . . .’, ‘Augmented Reality is like . . . because . . .’ and ‘Flipped Classroom is like . . . because . . .’ was used. In studies on metaphors, the term ‘like’ is usually employed to denote more clearly the similarity between the subject of metaphor and the source of the metaphor (Saban, 2008). The term ‘because’ was also incorporated into the study in order to ensure that the participants produced a logical reason for their analogies. In this frame, forms prepared by the researcher were handed out to the pre-service teachers, asking them to focus on only one metaphor for each concept. After they chose the metaphors, the students were asked to submit a detailed rationale for them in the second part of the sentence. Before filling out the form, the participants were informed about the metaphors by the researchers through examples. The pre-service teachers spent 15–20 minutes to complete filling out the form.

Analysis and interpretation of data

Content analysis was used to analyze the metaphors developed by the pre-service teachers. Cohen, et al. (2007) define content analysis as summarizing and reporting the basic content of written information available and the messages it includes. In other words, content analysis is aimed at identifying data and revealing the facts inherent in such data (Gulbahar & Alper, 2009). In this frame, the data obtained are converted into systematic data, or in other words, categorized. Then, precise, definite, and detailed rules are identified to allow all participating students to interpret in the same manner; that is, categories are fully formulated (Tavsancil & Aslan, 2001). The metaphors developed by the pre-service teachers are analyzed and interpreted in four stages.

Choosing and coding metaphors

A comprehensive list was prepared for the metaphors developed. According to this list, the data collected from the pre-service teachers were examined in terms of whether they involved a metaphor clearly defined for them, and whether they were associated with the related concepts. The data sheets, which did not contain any clearly defined metaphor, were marked and sorted. Two sheets related to the LRIP concept, one sheet related to the AR concept and two sheets related to the FC concept were screened out as they lacked a specific rationale.

Classification of metaphors and development of categories

At this stage, metaphors produced by the pre-service teachers were grouped and categorized by their common characteristics. Each metaphor was associated in terms of the pre-service teachers’ perceptions about the LRIP, AR and FC concepts. Following the mentioned procedures, 64 metaphors in total were included within the scope of study. In addition, it was observed that some of the metaphors were produced by several pre-service teachers.

Determining exemplary metaphors and rationale

The documents that were deemed to be the best representative of the metaphors developed were selected with the aim of creating a list. Metaphors were determined by means of exemplary statements thus selected. The abbreviation ‘PST’ was used for the quotes of the pre-service teachers in respect of the rationale of related metaphors, and each of the pre-service teachers was assigned a number. For instance, PST-1 refers to the first pre-service teacher who participated in the study while PST-2 refers to the second.

Validity and reliability works

The data collected were extensively reported, original statements of the participants were exactly quoted without any addition and the method used by the researcher to achieve the results was described; these are the most significant indicators of validity in terms of qualitative research (Yildirim & Simsek, 2011). In this sense, the data analyzed were reported in detail along with their frequencies and categories; original statements that were deemed to be convenient as representatives of the metaphors obtained, and their rationales were compiled and listed in the findings section. Whereas, with regard to the reliability of the study, two experts were referred to for their views about whether the metaphors obtained were representative of the conceptual categories created, the numbers of agreement and disagreement were identified based on reviews of experts. The reliability formula suggested by Miles and Huberman (1994) was used to perform a reliability estimation of the study. Following the estimation, it was found that the research has a reliability ratio of 92%. Reliability of the coefficient ratio above 70% is considered reliable for the study (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

Determining exemplary metaphors and rationale

All the data were computerized, tabulated and interpreted along with their frequencies.

Findings

This section contains findings on metaphors related to the ‘LRIP’, ‘AR’ and ‘FC’ concepts in line with the research questions, and categories in which the metaphors are addressed.

Metaphors relating to the ‘LRIP’

In the scope of the study, 15 different metaphors created by the pre-service teachers in relation to the ‘LRIP’ concept were divided into three sub-categories, which included ‘edutainment tool’, a ‘technological tool’ and a ‘development tool’. Table 2 shows the metaphors relating to the ‘LRIP’ concept and their distribution by category.

Table 2.

Metaphors Produced In Relation To The ‘LRIP’.

Edutainment ToolGame (6), Toy (5), Playground (1), A Glamorous Circus (1), Action Movie (1), Edutainment (1)

Development ToolJigsaw Puzzle (7), Programming (3), Colourful Pieces (1), Human Body (1)

A Technological ToolRobot (5), Technology (2), Mechanism (1), Sewing Machine (1), Smart Classroom (1)

When Table 2 is examined, it is seen that the pre-service teachers produced the metaphors related to the ‘LRIP’ concept most commonly under the sub-theme ‘edutainment tool’. Accordingly, it was found out that the participants most commonly indicated the metaphors ‘game’ (f = 6) and ‘toy’ (f = 5). For this category, the rationale for the metaphors produced by certain pre-service teachers were addressed:

PST-5: Creating and programming robots and completing certain missions brings the concept of a game to mind. (Game)

PST-4: This application both entertains us and helps us learn. We can create our toys by ourselves. We can include new information to create more different designs and applications. (Toy)

PST-23: You can feel like a child while making a robot, time flies when you’re having fun. This primarily involves psychomotor skills. Students learn by doing. (Action movie)

Under the category of ‘development tool’, the pre-service teachers most commonly made an analogy between the LRIP and the ‘jigsaw puzzle’ concept. In terms of frequency, this metaphor is followed by programming (f = 3), colourful pieces (f = 1) and human body (f = 1), respectively. Below are some of the statements made by the participants regarding the rationale of the metaphors produced in this category:

PST-8: We’re trying to build an entire structure by using LEGO pieces, and finally we sort of create a product. (Jigsaw puzzle)

PST-11: Dozens of colourful pieces are put together to form a whole, they would not be so attractive and entertaining if they were colourless. (Colourful pieces)

PST-14: Going from part to whole, we create a system. We can make an analogy between the smallest units and cells. (Human body)

Under the category of ‘A technological tool’, the most commonly addressed metaphor is ‘robot’ (f = 5), which is followed by technology (f = 2). Additionally, the metaphors ‘mechanism’, ‘sewing machine’, and ‘smart classroom’ were each produced by one participant in relation to the concept mentioned. Below are some of the rationales presented by the pre-service teachers regarding the metaphors developed in this category:

PST-7: Robot design is, in a way, a mechanical work force which we can use for different tasks. We can program a robot to make it move however we want. (Robot)

PST-19: The aim of science is to try to understand and explain the natural world. Technology, on the other hand, is aimed at changing the natural world in order to meet demands and needs of people. It is observed that technology supports improvement of certain scientific skills, saves time and enhances critical and creative thinking skills of students. (Technology)

PST-19: LEGO robotic instructional practices are just like a sewing machine, which enables us join pieces to create a product. (Sewing machine)

Metaphors relating to the ‘AR’

In the scope of the study, 24 different metaphors created by the pre-service teachers in relation to the ‘AR’ concept were divided into four sub-categories, which are ‘Perception of Reality’, ‘A Technological Tool’, ‘Change/Transformation Tool’ and ‘Entertainment Tool’. Table 3 shows the metaphors relating to the ‘AR’ concept and their distribution by category.

Table 3.

Metaphors Relating To The AR Concept.

Perception of Reality3d Virtual World (5), Hallucination (4), World In Space (1), Real World (1), Dream (1), Secret Garden (1), Live Model (1), Science Fiction (1)

A Technological ToolHologram (3), Vr (2), Google Glass (1), Vr Glasses (1)

Change/Transformation ToolMagic (4), Qr Code Scan (1), Virtual Reflecting Tool (1), Pointer (1), Bridge (1), Evolution (1), Water (1), Technology-Based Learning (1)

Entertainment ToolSurprise (1), Jigsaw Puzzle (1), Game (1), Drama (1)

When Table 3 is examined, the metaphors produced by the pre-service teachers in relation to the ‘AR’ concept were most commonly listed in the category ‘Perception of Reality’. Under this category, ‘3D virtual world’ (f = 5) and ‘hallucination’ (f = 4) were the most commonly addressed metaphors. Furthermore, the participants made an analogy between AR and the concepts ‘world in space’, ‘dream’, ‘secret garden’, ‘live model’ and ‘science fiction’. Below are the rationales presented by some of the pre-service teachers in relation to the metaphors produced in this category.

PST-30: Hallucination seems real to the experiencer even though it is unreal. Augmented reality, on the other hand, is where virtuality meets reality. (Hallucination)

PST-6: I think that the augmented reality behind images is more beautiful, vibrant and attractive. (Secret garden)

Under the category of ‘A technological tool’, it was observed that the pre-service teachers most commonly developed the metaphors ‘hologram’ (f = 3) and ‘virtual reality’ (f = 2). ‘Google glass’ and ‘Virtual reality glasses’ were each used in analogies to the AR concept by a participant. In reference to these findings, some of the pre-service teachers presented the following rationale:

PST-15: We encounter the silhouette - virtual image of an object or human like a hologram, as if it were with us. . . (Hologram)

PST-22: In fact, it simulates an object or environment that physically does not exist, it reminds me of the term virtual reality, which is commonly used. (VR)

PST-35: This is a similar technology to Google virtual reality headset, which I have seen before. It was more of a wearable computer, but this one can be viewed on different devices. (Google glass)

The metaphor most commonly addressed by the pre-service teachers under the category of ‘Change/Transformation Tool’ is ‘magic’ (f = 4). Additionally, an analogy was made to the concepts of QR code scan, virtual reflecting tool, pointer, bridge, evolution, water, and technology-based learning. Below are some examples of the rationale presented by the pre-service teachers regarding the metaphors developed in this category:

PST-16: The sheet you hold in your hand is no different than ordinary sheets, but it’s animated as soon as you hold an application on it. Actually, it isn’t there, but it looks like it is real. (Magic)

PST-21: Just like water being the source of life for human beings, augmented reality and other applications also have the same function in terms of education. They liven up the class and increase interest. (Water)

The metaphors created in category ‘Entertainment Tool’ are ‘surprise’, ‘jigsaw puzzle’, ‘game’ and ‘drama’. In reference to these findings, the pre-service teachers who made an analogy between the AR and the concepts ‘drama’ and ‘surprise’ presented the following rationale:

PST-3: Drama involves animation. But it is not fully real. Augmented reality, on the other hand, presents an image which will enable us to better picture the image in our minds. (Drama)

PST-26: This makes us wonder about what will meet us, whether it will be a virtual show, whether it will be entertaining or how it is designed. (Surprise)

Metaphors relating to the ‘FC’

In scope of the study, 25 different metaphors created in relation to the ‘FC’ concept were classified in two sub-categories as ‘form of education’ and ‘an education shaping tool’. Table 4 shows the metaphors relating to the ‘FC’ concept and their distribution by category.

Table 4.

Metaphors Relating to the FC Concept.

Form Of EducationDistance Learning (4), Learning by Video (3), Face To Face & Virtual Learning (3), Virtual Learning (3), Home Learning (2), In-class Activity (2), Learning Anywhere (2), One-To-One Instruction (1), Peer Learning (1), Student-Centred Environment (1), A Modern Method (1) Meta Cognitive Learning (1), Active Learning (1), Glass Half-Full (1), Balance (1), Parts (1), Preliminary Information (1), Saving on Time (1).

An Education Shaping ToolRainbow (1), Raindrop (1), Matryoshka Doll (1), A Technlogical Journey (1), Treasure Chest (1), Worksheet (1), Imaginary World (1).

When Table 4 is examined, the metaphors produced by the pre-service teachers in relation to the ‘FC’ concept are most commonly listed in the category ‘Form of Education’. Under this category, the pre-service teachers commonly made an analogy between FC and the concepts of ‘distance learning’ (f = 4), ‘learning by video’ (f = 3), ‘face to face and virtual learning’ (f = 3) and ‘virtual learning’ (f = 3). Below are some of the rationales for the metaphors produced in the category ‘Form of Education’:

PST-8: We see our teacher in videos, as well. The distance learning method used prevents loss of time. So we can have more time to spend for in-class activities. (Distance learning)

PST-23: We have the opportunity to repeat the course lectured in the class by viewing the video of that course at any time we want, and being able to rewind-forward videos is an advantage for learning because we do not have the chance to have the teacher’s lecture repeated. (Learning by video)

PST-12: Let’s assume that a student without knowledge about the topic is an empty glass. Later, what they have learned through flipped classroom method will fill that glass half, and help the glass be filled in following practices. (Glass half full)

PST-1: The teacher can attract attention while lecturing on the subject. Allowing students to view the favourite parts will arouse their interest. This will make the lesson more entertaining. And there is the opportunity to repeat the video several times for distracted or uninterested students. (Parts)

Under the category of ‘an education shaping tool’, the pre-service teachers made an analogy between FC and the concepts of ‘rainbow’, ‘raindrop’, ‘matryoshka dolls’, ‘a technological journey’, ‘treasure chest’, ‘worksheet’ and ‘imaginary world’. Below are the rationales presented by some of the participants in relation to the metaphors produced in this category.

PST-35: It contains a variety of colours which offer a magnificent view when they come together. (Rainbow)

PST-6: When they open the chest, they will find the gold, or in other words, the information; so they will be prepared for the next lesson and the activities. They will be able to play the video as many times as they want, take notes, answer the questions in the video and make use of the interactive flipped classroom environment. (Treasure chest)

PST-18: They can always offer something more beautiful and more entertaining. Like matryoshka dolls, once you think you have none left, you will get one more. Therefore, I made an analogy to this example. (Matryoshka doll)

Discussion and conclusion

In the scope of this, which aimed to reveal metaphorical perceptions of the pre-service science teachers on the concepts of ‘LRIP’, ‘AR’ and ‘FC’, the 64 metaphors obtained were classified under nine conceptual categories and the results were discussed in the light of the findings obtained. The findings obtained from the study reveal that the most commonly produced metaphors in relation to the ‘LRIP’ concept are in categories of ‘Edutainment tool’, ‘Development tool’ and ‘A technological tool’. In the category of ‘Edutainment tool’, which is represented by the highest number of metaphors, the participants most commonly produced the metaphors ‘game’ and ‘toy’. The category of ‘Development tool’ was most commonly represented by the metaphor ‘jigsaw puzzle’, while the category of ‘A technological tool’ is most commonly represented by the metaphor ‘robot’. This manifests that the participants have positive views on the related concept and usually they associate it with the concept of ‘entertainment’. Hence, it was observed that the results obtained from this study have similarities to the study performed by Cetintas and Avcu (2017) to reveal the metaphorical perceptions of secondary school students about the robotics concept. Moreover, it is noted that the LRIP contributes to skill development of students through entertainment (Alimisis, 2013; Eguchi, 2014); and increases their motivation and concentration (Cukurbasi & Kiyici, 2018). Furthermore, Liu et al. (2013) suggests that, similarto the findings related to the category of ‘development tool’, students consider robotic practices as a development tool and have the opportunity to design their own products, both of which increase their motivation to study. Thus, it is worth noting that the metaphors obtained and the categories created generally confirm that robotic learning kits can be used to develop students’ building, programming and design skills thanks to their entertaining and instructional features, and they can enhance creativity (Lin et al., 2009), which is similar to the other studies in the literature (Afari & Khine, 2017; Cukurbasi & Kiyici, 2018; Kazez & Genc, 2016; Kucuk & Sisman, 2017; Ozdogru, 2013; Somyurek, 2015). The rationale for the metaphors produced by the students were observed to verify the same.

The metaphors most commonly produced by the participants in relation to the ‘AR’ concept are in the categories ‘Perception of Reality’, ‘Change / Transformation Tool’, ‘A Technological Tool’ and ‘Entertainment Tool’. In the category ‘Perception of Reality’, which is represented by the highest number of metaphors, the participants most commonly produced the metaphors ‘3D virtual world’ and ‘hallucination’. Indeed, the AR technology allows students to have fascinating experiences by integrating virtual objects into their real-world environments and augmenting users’ perception of reality (Dunleavy & Dede, 2014). The category of ‘Change/Transformation Tool’ is most commonly represented by the metaphor ‘magic’, while the category of ‘A Technological Tool’ is mainly represented by the metaphors ‘hologram’ and ‘VR’, and the category of ‘Entertainment Tool’ is represented equally by the metaphors ‘surprise’, ‘jigsaw puzzle’, ‘game’ and ‘drama’. In line with this category, the participants perceive the AR as an edutainment tool in instructional environments. This may arise from the exciting and attractive characteristics of the AR technology. As a result of the study, the metaphors produced in relation to the AR concept were categorized as ‘Inspiring’, ‘Source of Entertainment’, ‘Useful’, ‘Using Real Objects’, ‘Using Hominid Metaphors’, and ‘Using Extraordinary Metaphors’.

The metaphors most commonly produced by the participants in relation to the ‘FC’ concept are in the categories ‘Form of Education’ and ‘An Education Shaping Tool’. In the category ‘Form of Education’, which is represented by the highest number of metaphors, the participants mainly produced the metaphors ‘distance learning’, ‘learning by video’, ‘face to face and virtual learning’ and ‘virtual learning’. In the category of ‘an education shaping tool’, the metaphors ‘rainbow’, ‘raindrop’, ‘matryoshka dolls’, ‘a technological journey’, ‘treasure chest’, ‘worksheet’ and ‘imaginary world’ were produced in equal number. No study has been found in the literature which examines the metaphorical perceptions in relation to the FC. However, the studies which reveal views of participants on the FC are observed to have results that are supportive of the findings obtained in the scope of the study. (Goru Dogan, 2015; ThiThanhQuyen, 2017; Yildiz et al., 2017; Yilmaz, 2017; Xiu et al., 2018). In the study by Cukurbasi and Kiyici (2017), where the participants were prepared for the classes by using the FC method, they took active roles in the class, they had the opportunity to view the videos repeatedly and to eliminate time and space restrictions. Moreover, Akgun and Atici (2017) evidenced that the participants had the opportunity to work at their own learning pace, they were able to use the time in the class more efficiently, they were prepared in advance for the class and their active participation in the class was increased.

Briefly, it was observed that the pre-service teachers have positive views on the new technologies and they attribute instructional meanings to these technologies. The reason for these views of the participants might include applied trainings on new technologies in the scope of the related course and their experience in it. Considering that the pre-service teachers have a positive tendency towards related technologies in the study, integration of these technologies into classes in training of teachers may facilitate learning and contribute to improvement of the entertaining aspects of classes.

The study was carried out within the context of a class and therefore the number of participants was low, which may be regarded as a restriction. Nevertheless, it is considered that necessary materials and applied courses for instructional technologies such as LRIP, AR and FC are not adequate in instructional environments. In this frame, more materials can be made available in the future and richer data can be obtained in a larger sample group; further studies can be carried out by integrating new technologies and practices (e.g. virtual reality, hologram). Additionally, a comparative study can be conducted on metaphors regarding the content of the lecture to pre-service teachers on new technologies, and analyzed in two stages before and after the instructional practice.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

This study is the extended and enhanced version of the paper titled ‘Öğretmen Adaylarının LEGO Robotik Öğretim, Artırılmış Gerçeklik ve Ters Yüz Edilmiş Sınıf Kavramlarına İlişkin Metaforik Algıları’ which was presented as an abstract between 7-8 December 2017 at the International Conference on Quality in Higher Education (ICQH 2017), which is not included in the proceeding as a full text.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Mustafa Fidan

Murat Debbag

Baris Cukurbasi

Author biographies

Mustafa Fidan is an Assistant Professor in department of educational sciences at Bartin University, Turkey. He also works at Distance Education Application and Research Center. He received a Ph.D in curriculum and instruction from Bolu Abant Izzet Baysal University in Turkey. His research interests include distance education, augmented reality, hidden curriculum, curriculum evaluation, teacher education, instructional design and educational technologies.

Murat Debbag is an Assistant Professor in department of educational sciences at Bartin University, Turkey. Completed his Ph.D (Curriculum and Instruction) at Abant İzzet Baysal University, Bolu, and his master (Educational Technology) at Gazi University, Ankara. His areas of interest are distance education, educational technologies, teacher training and blended learning.

Baris Cukurbasi is an Assistant Professor in department of computer technology at Manisa Celal Bayar University, Turkey. He received a Ph.D in Computer and Instructional Technologies Education from Sakarya University. His research interest lies in the distance education, flipped classroom, robotics, Internet technologies, instructional design and technology integration in education.

References

Abdusselam

(2014) Teachers’ and students’ views on using augmented reality environments in physics education: 11th grade magnetism topic example. Pegem Journal of Education and Instruction 4(1): 59-74. 10.14527/pegegog.2014.004

Adams Becker

Cummins

Davis

Freeman

Hall Glesinger

Ananthanarayanan

(2017) NMC Horizon Report: 2017 Higher Education Edition . The New Media Consortium. Available at: https://library.educause.edu/resources/2017/2/2017-horizon-report (accessed 3 March 2019).

Afari

Khine

(2017) Robotics as an educational tool: Impact of LEGO mindstorms. International Journal of Information and Education Technology 7(6): 437–442. 10.18178/ijiet.2017.7.6.908

Akcayir

(2017) Advantages and challenges associated with augmented for education: A systematic review of the literature. Educational Research Review 20: 1–11. 10.1016/j.edurev.2016.11.002

Akgun

Atici

(2017) The effect of flipped classroom on learners’ academic achievements and views. Kastamonu Education Journal 25(1): 329–344. Available at: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/kefdergi/issue/27737/309169

Akyol

(2017) Metaforlarin kullanim alanlari ve faydalari. In: Kilcan

Metafor ve egitimde metaforik calismalar icin bir uygulama rehberi (s 51–92). Pegem Academy

Alimisis

(2013) Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science & Technology Education 6(1): 63–71. Available at: http://edumotiva.eu/edumotiva/images/files/119-329-1-PB.pdf

Arslan

Zengin

(2017) Investigation of science teacher student teachers’ perceptions about the concept of technology through metaphor analysis. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies 55: 22–36. 10.9761/JASSS6884

Awidi

Paynter

(2019) The impact of a flipped classroom approach on student learning experience. Computers & Education 128: 269–283. 10.1016/j.compedu.2018.09.013

10.

Azuma

(1997) A survey of augmented reality. Presence-Teleoperators and Virtual Environments 6(4): 355–385. Available at: https://www.cs.unc.edu/~azuma/ARpresence.pdf

11.

Beldag

Gecit

(2017) Social studies teachers’ perceptions regarding the concept geography: A phenomenological study. Eastern Geographical Review 22(37): 99–112. https://doi.org/10.17295/ataunidcd.277905

12.

Bergmann

Sams

(2012) Flip your classroom: Reach every student in every class every day. International Society for Technology in Education.

13.

Biyikli

Basbay

(2014) Secondary and high school students’ metaphors about the concept of science. Abant İzzet Baysal University Journal of Faculty of Education 14(1): 413–437. https://doi.org/10.17240/aibuefd.2014.14.1-5000091520

14.

Botha

(2009) Why metaphor matters in education. South African Journal of Education 29: 431–444. 10.15700/saje.v29n4a287

15.

Cai

Wang

Chiang

F K

(2014) A case study of augmented reality simulation system application in a chemistry course. Computers in Human Behavior 37: 31–40. 10.1016/j.chb.2014.04.018.

16.

Cam

Cukurbasi

Kiyici

(2017) Examination of studies on LEGO robotic instructional practices. International Computer & Instructional Technologies Symposium Abstract Book (p. 39). Malatya: International Computer & Instructional Technologies Symposium.

17.

Carmigniani

Furht

Anisetti

Ceravolo

Damiani

Ivkovic

(2011) Augmented reality technologies, systems and applications. Multimedia Tools and Applications 51(1): 341–377. 10.1007/s11042-010-0660-6

18.

Cetintas

Avcu

(2017) Investigating the metaphorical perceptions of high school students towards the concept of robotics. Route Educational and Social Science Journal 20: 78–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.17121/ressjournal.878

19.

Cohen

Manion

Morrison

(2007) Research Methods in Education (6th ed). Routledge.

20.

Cukurbasi

Yavuz Konokman

Guler

Kartal

(2018) Developing the acceptance scale of LEGO robotics instructional practices: Validity and reliability studies. Bartin University Journal of Faculty of Education 7(1): 191–214. 0.14686/buefad.337738

21.

Cukurbasi

Kiyici

(2017) Preservice teachers’ views about flipped classroom model. Journal of Bayburt Education Faculty 12(23): 77–92. Available at: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/befdergi/issue/30012/277978

22.

Cukurbasi

Kiyici

(2018) High school students’ views on the PBL activities supported via flipped classroom and LEGO practices. Educational Technology & Society 21(2): 46–61. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/26388378.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Abe78bd6df414abda93dd0b980869688f

23.

Debbag

(2018) The effectiveness of the flipped classroom model designed for teaching principles and methods course curriculum. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Bolu Abant Izzet Baysal University, Institute of Educational Science, Bolu, Turkey.

24.

Dunleavy

Dede

(2014) Augmented reality teaching and learning. In: Bishop

M J

Elen

(eds) Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (4th edn) Macmillan, 735–745.

25.

Eguchi

(2014) Educational robotics for promoting 21st century skills. Journal of Automation Mobile Robotics and Intelligent Systems 8(1): 5–11. 10.14313/JAMRIS_1-2014/1

26.

Eguchi

(2016) RoboCupJunior for promoting STEM education, 21st century skills, and technological advancement through robotics competition. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 75(B): 692–699. 10.1016/j.robot.2015.05.013

27.

Erdogan

Corlu

Capraro

(2013) Defining innovation literacy: Do robotics programs help students develop innovation literacy skills? International Online Journal of Educational Sciences 5(1): 1–9. shorturl.at/ghE47

28.

Ersen

(2016) Preservice mathematics teachers’ metaphorical perceptions towards proof and proving. International Education Studies 9(7): 88–97. 10.5539/ies.v9n7p88

29.

Fidan

(2014) Prospective teachers’ metaphoric perceptions regarding the concept of technology and social network. The Journal of Academic Social Science Studies 25(I): 483–496. 10.9761/JASSS2229

30.

Fidan

(2018) The impact of problem-based science teaching assisted with augmented reality applications on academic achievement, retention, attitude and belief of self-efficacy. PhD Thesis. Bolu Abant Izzet Baysal University, Institute of Educational Science.

31.

Gecit

Gencer

(2011) Determining the geographical perception of the 1st grade students ın the department of primary education through metaphor (Example of Rize university). Marmara Geographical Review 23: 1–19. Available at: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/marucog/issue/470/3809

32.

Gregorious

R MA

(2017) Performance of underprepared students in traditional versus animation-based flipped-classroom settings. Chemistry Education Research and Practice 18(4): 841–848. 10.1039/C7RP00130D

33.

Goru Dogan

(2015) Sosyal medyanin ogrenme sureclerinde kullanimi: Ters-yuz edilmis ogrenme yaklasimina iliskin ogrenen gorusleri. Acikogretim Uygulamalari ve Arastirmalari Dergisi 1(2): 24–48. Available at: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/auad/issue/3029/42080

34.

Gulbahar

Alper

(2009) A content analysis of the studies in instructional technologies area. Ankara University Journal of Faculty of Educational Science 42(2): 93–111. Available at: https://dspace.ankara.edu.tr/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20.500.12575/46915/13975.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

35.

Hinton

(2017) An exploratory study of a robotics educational platform on STEM career interests in middle school students. PhD Thesis, The University of Alabama.

36.

Johnson

Adams Becker

Cummins

Estrada

Freeman

Hall

(2016) NMC Horizon Report: 2016 Higher Education Edition. The New Media Consortium. Available at: https://library.educause.edu/resources/2016/2/2016-horizon-report

37.

Johnson

Adams Becker

Estrada

Freeman

(2015) NMC Horizon Report: 2015 Higher Education Edition. The New Media Consortium. Available at: https://library.educause.edu/resources/2015/2/2015-horizon-report

38.

Kahyaoglu

Daban

Cetin

(2017) The teacher candidates’ views on metaphors with respect to the concept of technology. Journal of Strategic Research in Social Science 3(3): 189–198. 10.26579/josress-3.3.13

39.

Karabay

(2016) An investigation of prospective teachers’ views regarding teacher identity via metaphors. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 65: 1–18. 10.14689/ejer.2016.65.01

40.

Karacam

Aydin

(2017) Metaphor analysis of secondary school students’ perceptions related to technology concept. Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences 13(2): 545–572. https://doi.org/10.21547/jss.256829

41.

Karakoc Ozturk

Dagistanlioglu

B E

(2018) Pre-service Turkish teachers’ metaphorical perceptions regarding the concepts of ‘Instructional Technology’ and ‘Teaching Material’. Universal Journal of Educational Research 6(5): 811–822. 10.13189/ujer.2018.060501

42.

Karakoyun

(2017) Visual arts pre-service teachers’ metaphoric perceptions related to technology. International Congress of Eurasian Social Sciences (ICOESS) Special Issue 8(28) 124–138. Available at: http://www.ijoess.com/Makaleler/1496954650_9-CXXIV-%20CXXXVIII%20-%20Ferit%20Karakoyun.pdf

43.

Kazez

Genc

(2016) Research trends in LEGO and robotic usage in education: A document analysis. Journal of Instructional Technologies & Teacher Education 5(1): 19–31. Available at: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/jitte/issue/25089/264784

44.

Kiral

(2017) Faculty of education students’ perspectives to ‘scientist’. The Journal of International Social Research 10(52): 773–782. http://dx.doi.org/10.17719/jisr.2017.1934

45.

Kiyici

(2018) Augmented reality from Turkish researchers’ perspective. The Malaysian Online Journal of Educational Technology 6(4):1–12. 10.17220/mojet.2018.04.001

46.

Koc

(2013) Student teachers’ conceptions of technology: A metaphor analysis. Computers and Education 68: 1–8. 10.1016/j.compedu.2014.11.019 0360-1315

47.

Koc

(2014) The metaphorical perceptions of classroom teacher candidates regarding teacher and teaching profession concepts. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education 15(1): 47–72. 10.17679/iuefd.79408

48.

Korkmaz

Unsal

(2016) An investigation of preschool teachers’ perceptions on the concept of technology Mustafa Kemal University Journal of Social Sciences Institute 13(35): 194–212. Available at: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/mkusbed/issue/24546/259992

49.

Koseoglu

(2018) An analysis of prospective teachers’ perceptions concerning the concept of ‘social media’ through metaphors. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 14(1): 45–52. 10.12973/ejmste/79325

50.

Kounavis

C D

Kasimati

A E

Zamani

E D

Giaglis

G M

(2012) Enhancing the tourism experience through mobile augmented reality: Challenges and prospects. International Journal of Engineering Business Management 4(10): 1–6. 10.5772/51644

51.

Kucuk

Sisman

(2016) Instructor experiences in one-to-one robotics instruction. Elementary Education Online 16(1): 312–325. 10.17051/io.2017.12092

52.

Lakoff

(1993) The contemporary theory of metaphor. In: Metaphor and Thought. UC Berkeley. Available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/54g7j6zh

53.

Lakoff

Johnson

(2005) Metaforlar hayat. Anlam ve dil (Transl: Demir

G. Y.

). Paradigma Publishing.

54.

Lee

(2012) Augmented reality in education and training. TechTrends 56(2): 13–21. 10.1007/s11528-012-0559-3

55.

Liu

E Z-H

Lin

C-H

Feng

H-C

Hou

H-T

(2013) An analysis of teacher-student interaction patterns in a robotics course for kindergarten children: A pilot study. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 12(1): 9–18. Available at: http://www.tojet.net/articles/v12i1/1212.pdf

56.

Lin

Liu

Kou

Virnes

Sutinen

Cheng

S-S

(2009) A case analysis of creative spiral instruction model and students’ creative problem solving performance in a Lego® robotics course. In: Chang

Kuo

Chen

Kinshuk

Hirose M

G-D

(eds) Edutainment 2009. LNCS vol 5670, Springer, 501–505.

57.

Gao

(2017) Metaphors used by pre-service teachers of Chinese as an international language. Journal of Education for Teaching 43(1): 71–83. 10.1080/02607476.2016.1182372

58.

Miles

M B

Huberman

A M

(1994) Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed). Sage.

59.

Noyes

(2004) The poetry of the universe: New mathematics teachers’ metaphoric meaning-making. Proceedings of the 28th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education 3: pp 441–448. Bergen, Norway: Bergen University College.

60.

Onen Ozturk

Aglarci

(2017) Prospective chemistry and science teachers’ views and metaphors about chemistry and chemical studies. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 71: 119–140. Available at: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1158383.pdf

61.

Ozdogru

(2013) The effect of LEGO programme based science and technology education on the students academic achievement, science process skills and their attitudes toward science and technology course for pyhsical facts learning field. Unpublished master’s thesis. Dokuz Eylul University, Institute of Educational Science, İzmir, Turkey.

62.

Reidsema

Hadgraft

Kavanagh

(2017) Introduction to the flipped classroom. In: Reidsema

Kavanagh

Hadgraft

Smith

(eds) The Flipped Classroom: Practice and Practices in Higher Education. Springer, 3–14. 10.1007/978-981-10-3413-8

63.

Saban

(2008) Metaphors about school. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice 14(3): 459–496. Available at: http://www.kuey.net/index.php/kuey/article/view/844

64.

Saglam

Arslan

(2018) The effect of flipped classroom on th academic achievement and attitude of higher education students. World Journal of Education 8(4): 170–176. 10.5430/wje.v8n4p170

65.

Saglam Kaya

(2017) A metaphor analysis on preservice teachers’ conception of mathematical examples. Bartin University Journal of Faculty of Education 6(1): 48–67. 10.14686/buefad.264020

66.

Sahin

Sabanci

(2018) The perception of pedagogical formation students have towards educational concepts: Metaphoric study. Journal of Education and Future 13: 179–207. Available at: http://dergipark.gov.tr/jef/issue/35229/390958

67.

Saltan

Arslan

(2017) The use of augmented reality in formal education: A scoping review. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education 13(2): 503–520. 10.12973/eurasia.2017.00628a.

68.

Sarac

(2018) Use of instructional technologies by teachers in the educational process: Metaphor analysis study. European Journal of Educational Research 7(2):189–202. 10.12973/eu-jer.7.2.189

69.

Senel

Aslan

(2014) The metaphoric perceptions of preservice early childhood teachers conceptions on science and scientist. Mersin University Journal of The Faculty of Education 10(2): 76–95. Available at: https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/mersinefd/issue/17394/181827

70.

Singh

(2010) Metaphor as a tool in educational leadership classrooms. Management In Education 24(3): 127–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020608090411

71.

Somyurek

(2015) An effective educational tool construction kits for fun and meaningful learning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education 25: 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-014-9272-1

72.

Strenski

(1989) Disciplines and communities, armies and monasteries and the teaching of composition. Rhetoric Review 8(1): 137–146. 10.1080/07350198909388883

73.

Suer

Sezgin

Oral

(2017) Generation Z students’ perceptions of internet: A metaphor study. Electronic Journal of Education Sciences 6(12): 190–203. Available at: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/ejedus/issue/31928/343544

74.

Tavsancil

Aslan

(2001) Icerik analizi ve uygulama ornekleri. Epsilon Publish.

75.

Taylor

(1984) Metaphors of education. Heineman Educational Books Ltd.

76.

Thi Thanh Quyen

(2017) Students’ perceptions of flipped model on facebook for educational purposes. IOSR Journal of Research & Method in Education (IOSR-JRME) 7(3): 7–14. 10.9790/7388-0703020714

77.

Tok

(2018) Prospective pre-school teachers’ perceptions towards play: Metaphor analysis sample. Kastamonu Education Journal 26(2): 599–611. 10.24106/kefdergi.404885

78.

Tomi

A B

Rambli

D R A

(2013) An interactive mobile augmented reality magical playbook: Learning number with the thirsty crow. Procedia Computer Science 25: 123–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2013.11.015

79.

Turan

Yilmaz

Durdu

Goktas

(2016) Ogretim teknolojilerinin tarihsel gelisimi. In: Cagiltay

Goktas

Ogretim teknolojilerinin temelleri: Teoriler, arastirmalar, egilimler. Pegem Academy, 25–40.

80.

Ugur Erdogmus

Cagiltay

(2013) Türkiye’de egitim teknolojileri alaninda yayimlanan yuksek lisans ve doktora tezlerinde genel egilimler. In: Cagiltay

Goktas

Ogretim Teknolojilerinin Temelleri: Teoriler, Arastirmalar, Egilimler Pegem Academy, 279–290.

81.

Uslu

Kocakulah

Gur

(2016) Secondary school students science, scientist, and teacher perception on the concepts of metaphor study. Journal of Research in Education and Teaching 5(1): 354–364. Available at: http://www.jret.org/FileUpload/ks281142/File/36a. . .nalan_uslu.pdf

82.

Veeramani

Madhugiri

Chand

(2015) Perception of MBBS students to ‘flipped classroom’ approach in neuroanatomy module. Anatomy & Cell Biology 48(2): 138–43. https://doi.org/10.5115/acb.2015.48.2.138

83.

Wojciechowski

Cellary

(2013) Evaluation of learners’ attitude toward learning in ARIES augmented reality environments. Computers & Education 68: 570–585. 10.1016/j.compedu.2013.02.014

84.

H K

Lee

S W Y

Chang

H Y

Liang

J C

(2013) Current status, opportunities and challenges of augmented reality in education. Computers & Education 62: 41–49. 10.1016/j.compedu.2012.10.024

85.

Xiu

Moore

Thompson

French

(2018) Student perceptions of lecture-capture video to facilitate learning in a flipped classroom. TechTrends 63: 1–7. 10.1007/s11528-018-0293-6

86.

Yildiz

Sarsar

Ates Cobanoglu

(2017) A literature review of flipped classroom preactices. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences 16(60): 76–86. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.289652

87.

Yildirim

Simsek

(2006) Sosyal bilimlerde nitel arastirma yontemleri (5th edn) Seckin Publishing.

88.

Yilmaz

(2017) Flipped higher education classroom: An application in environmental education coure in primary education. Higher Education Studies 7(3): 93–102. 10.5539/hes.v7n3p93

89.

Yolcu

Demirer

(2017) A review on the studies about the use of robotic technologies in education. SDU International Journal of Educational Studies 4(2): 127–139. Available at: https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/sduijes/issue/32846/340897

90.

Yoon

Anderson

Lin

Elinich

(2017) How augmented reality enables conceptual understanding of challenging science content. Educational Technology & Society 20(1): 156–168. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/jeductechsoci.20.1.156.pdf?casa_token=1sKALcr4YjYAAAAA:sUZm0A2MYaiHowcx3p5R4s_eHGxrNO527R6c-ewnTwE0wzqiXXWtCNVHwwsIWAG22RH3ZB6ylfqmUW13HoNiY0LLGipArw8K1ZgPNsrmJZKOF3xcVFyw

91.

Zhamanov

Seong-MooYoo, Sakhiyeva

Zhaparov

(2018) Implementation and evaluation of flipped classroom as IoT element into learning process of computer network education. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE) 14(2): 30–47. 10.4018/IJICTE.2018040103