An issue arising in emergency distance education procedures, such as the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, is a lack of appropriate high-quality content and course activities for high ability students suitable for distance education. In this study, online CAD-based learning experiences structured with the Tinkercad Circuits Platform designed for gifted students were investigated based on the opinions of students regarding the distance education activity and the evaluations of the students’ scientific writing skills. This study used a single case holistic design with 10 gifted 6th-grade students at Usak Science and Art Center in Türkiye. All of the students stated that they had not previously encountered an activity such as the “smart air conditioning system”. The students also stated that although the activity was carried out in the form of distance education, it was positive and fun to be application-based, and that it was fun to research, discuss, design, and code with Tinkercad to look for a solution to the given problem. The evaluation of students’ products showed participants’ high level of proficiency in activities requiring advanced problem-solving skills, including planning the solution to the problem, creating an alternative plan for the solution, realizing, and evaluating the design.
AlvarezS.DelgadoL. D. R.GutierrezS. (2020). Mechatronics class through virtual platforms under COVID-19[Paper presentation]. IEEE International Conference on Engineering Veracruz (ICEV), 2020 (pp. 1–5). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEV50249.2020.9289670.
AytacliB. (2012). A detailed analysis on case study. Adnan Menderes University Journal of Educational Sciences, 3(1), 1–9.
4.
AyverdiL. (2018). The use of technology, engineering and mathematics in science education of gifted students: STEM approach [Unpublished PhD thesis]. Balıkesir University, Balıkesir, Türkiye.
5.
BanksF.BarlexD. (2014). Teaching STEM in the secondary school: Helping teachers meet the challenge. Routledge.
6.
BasaranM.DoganE.KaraogluE.SahinE. (2020). A study on effectiveness of distance education, as a return of coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic process. Academia Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(2), 368–397.
7.
BodurN. C.TuysuzC.UguluI. (2022). Qualitative evaluation of the science curriculum applied in science and art centers (SACs) for gifted students in Türkiye within the framework of the CIPP approach. Journal of Advanced Academics, 33(4), 604–635. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1932202X221119535
8.
BrennanK.ResnickM. (2012). New frameworks for studying and assessing the development of computational thinking[Paper presentation]. 2012 Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, Canada.
9.
CreswellJ. W.ClarkV. L. P.GutmannM. L.HansonW. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). Sage.
DíazL. M.HernándezC. M.OrtizA. V.Gaytán-LugoL. S. (2019). Tinkercad and codeblocks in a summer course: An attempt to explain observed engagement and enthusiasm[Paper presentation]. 2019 IEEE Blocks and Beyond Workshop (B&B), Memphis, TN, USA.
12.
DillingF.VoglerA. (2021). Fostering spatial ability through computer-aided design: A case study. Digital Experiences in Mathematics Education, 7(2), 323–336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40571-021-00084-w
13.
DoganA.UluayG. (2020). Pre-service science teachers’ learning and implementation experiences with 3d technologies: The example of Tinkercad. Trakya Journal of Education, 10(3), 980–994.
14.
ErkolS.UguluI. (2014). Examining biology teachers candidates’ scientific process skill levels and comparing these levels in terms of various variables. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 116, 4742–4747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.1019
15.
GopsillJ.SniderC.ShiL.HicksB. (2016). Computer aided design user interaction as a sensor for monitoring engineers and the engineering design process. Proceedings of the Design 2016 14th International Design Conference84(1), 1707–1718.
16.
HorvathI.VroomR. W. (2015). Ubiquitous computer aided design: A broken promise or a Sleeping Beauty? CAD Comput. Aid. Des, 59, 161–175. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.cad.2014.10.006
17.
JollyJ. L. (2009). Historical perspectives: The national defense education act, current STEM initiative, and the gifted. Gifted Child Today, 32(2), 50–53. https://doi.org/10.4219/gct-2009-873
18.
KaralarH. (2019). Middle school teachers’ perceptions and experiences towards physical computing. Gazi Journal of Education Sciences, 5(S1), 140–156.
19.
KorkmazÖ.ÇakırR.ve ÖzdenM. Y. (2016). Computational thinking levels scale (ctls) adaptation for secondary school level. Gazi Journal of Education Sciences, 1(2), 1–15.
20.
KoruogluN.UguluI.YorekN. (2015). Investigation of high school students’ environmental attitudes in terms of some demographic variables. Psychology, 6(13), 1608–1623. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2015.613158
21.
LuchaninovD.BazhenovR.SabirovaV.MamyrovaM.ZholdoshevaA. (2021). Online training of students of applied physics in the field of circuitry. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1889(2), 022030. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1889/2/022030
22.
MEB (2017). Science and Art Centers Science Activity Book. General Directorate of Special Education and Guidance Services, Ankara, Türkiye.
23.
MilesM.HubermanB. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded Sourcebook. Sage.
24.
MohapatraB. D.MohapatraR. K.JagdhaneV.AjayC. A.SherkarS. S.PhadtareV. S. (2020). Smart performance of virtual simulation experiments through Arduino Tinkercad circuits. Perspectives in Communication Embedded-Systems and Signal-Processing (PiCES), 4(7), 157–160. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4249073
25.
NgO.-L.SinclairN.DavisB. (2018). Drawing off the page: How new 3D technologies provide insight into cognitive and pedagogical assumptions about mathematics. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 15(3), 563–578. https://doi.org/10.54870/1551-3440.1445
26.
OlssonM.MozeliusP.CollinJ. (2015). Visualisation and gamification of e-learning and programming education. Electronic Journal of E-Learning, 13(6), 441–454.
27.
OlukA.KorkmazÖOlukH. A. (2018). Scratch’ın 5. Sınıf Öğrencilerinin algoritma geliştirme ve bilgi-İşlemsel düşünme becerilerine etkisi. Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education, 9(1), 54–71. https://doi.org/10.16949/turkbilmat.399588
28.
OteriO. M. (2020). The Arduino e-kit as applied in engineering, science and technology e-learning[Virtual presentation]. Sixth International Conference on e-Learning, e-conference, 978-1-6654-1550-7/20, 2020. IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ECONF51404.2020.9385459
29.
PielstickerF. (2021). Concept formation processes regarding height and base in triangles. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 16(2), em0633. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/10891
30.
PöllänenS.PöllänenK. (2019). Beyond programming and crafts: towards computational thinking in basic education. Design and Technology Education, 2(1), 13–32.
31.
RahmanM. H.SchimpfC.XieC.ShaZ. (2019). A computer-aided design based research platform for design thinking studies. Journal of Mechanical Design, 141(12), 121102. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4044395
32.
SaddlerB.AndradeH. (2004). The writing rubric. Educational Leadership, 62(2), 48–52.
33.
SariU.KarasahinA. (2020). Computational thinking in science education: Evaluating a teaching activity. Turkish Journal of Primary Education, 5(2), 194–218.
34.
SezginS. (2021). Analysis of the emergency remote education process: Featured terms, problems and lessons learned. Anadolu University Journal of Social Sciences, 21(1), 273–296. https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.902616
35.
TurkoguzS.BaranM. S.GurbuzM.TuysuzC.UguluI. (2021). Quantitative evaluation of prospective teachers’ views on inclusive education. European Journal of Education Studies, 8(10), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v8i10.3944
36.
TuysuzC.GurbuzM.GoncuA.UguluI. (2023). Prospective teachers’ attitudes towards the education of gifted/talented students. MIER Journal of Educational Studies Trends & Practices, 13(2), 275–298. http://doi.org/10.52634/mier/2023/v13/i2/2434
37.
TuysuzC.UguluI. (2021). Determination of the satisfaction levels of prospective teachers regarding the e-learning application during the coronavirus pandemic. European Journal of Education Studies, 8(3), 199–134. https://doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v8i3.3623
38.
TuysuzC.YorukA. M.TurkoguzS.UguluI. (2022). Factors affecting the fear levels of secondary school students during the COVID-19 pandemic. MIER Journal of Educational Studies Trends & Practices, 12(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.52634/mier/2021/v11/i2/2173
39.
UguluI. (2009). Determination of retention of students knowledge and the effect of conceptual understanding. Biotech Biotechnol Equip, 23(1), 14–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13102818.2009.10818354
40.
UguluI. (2019). Efficacy of recycling education integrated with ecology course prepared within the context of enrichment among gifted students. Int J Edu Sci, 26(1-3), 49–58. https://doi.org/10.31901/24566322.2019/26.1-3.1086
UguluI.AkkayaZ.ErkolS. (2013). An investigation on environmental attitudes of gifted students and the assessments in terms of some demographic variables. NWSA-Education Sciences, 8(4), 400–410. https://doi.org/10.12739/NWSA.2013.8.4.1C0595
43.
UguluI. (2013b). Confirmatory factor analysis for testing validity and reliability of traditional knowledge scale to measure university students’ attitudes. Educational Research and Reviews, 8(16), 1399–1408. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2013.1537
44.
UguluI. (2015a). Development and validation of an instrument for assessing attitudes of high school students about recycling. Environ Educ Res, 21(6), 916–942. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2014.923381
45.
UguluI. (2013a). Development and validation of an instrument to measure university students’ attitudes toward traditional knowledge. Journal of Human Ecology, 43(2), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/09709274.2013.11906621
46.
UguluI. (2015b). A quantitative investigation on recycling attitudes of gifted/talented students. Biotech Biotechnol Equip, 29, 20–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/13102818.2015.1047168
47.
UguluI. (2021a). Quantitative research on gifted students’ scientific epistemological beliefs. MIER Journal of Educational Studies Trends & Practices, 11(2), 252–268. https://doi.org/10.52634/mier/2021/v11/i2/1683
48.
UguluI. (2021b). Traditional environmental knowledge and gifted students as two important sources of social memory: Gifted students’ attitudes towards traditional knowledge. European Journal of Education Studies, 8(7), 100–112. https://doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v8i7.3804
49.
Vidal-SilvaC.Serrano-MalebranJ.PereiraF. (2019). Scratch and Arduino for effectively developing programming and computing-electronic competences in primary school children[Paper presentation]. 38th International Conference of the Chilean Computer Science Society (SCCC) (pp. 1–7). http://doi.org/10.1109/SCCC49216.2019.8966401
50.
VieiraC.ParsonsP.ByrdV. (2018). Visual learning analytics of educational data: A systematic literature review and research agenda. Comput. Educ, 122, 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.018
51.
WangW. C.HillsD. (2014). The impact of programming experience on success fully learning systems analysis and design[Paper presentation]. Proceedings of the Information Systems Educators Conference (Vol. 2167, p. 1435).
52.
WartalskiR.KritikosE.PowersN. (2013). Setting the stage for junior faculty and new instructors: A basic primer for teaching & learning. Northeastern Illinois University, 2021.
53.
XieC.SchimpfC.ChaoJ.NourianS.MassicotteJ. (2018). Learning and teaching engineering design through modelling and simulation on a CAD platform. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 26(4), 824–840. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.v26.410.1002/cae.21920
54.
XieC.ZhangZ.NourianS.PallantA.BaileyS. (2014). On the instructional sensitivity of CAD logs. Int. J. Eng. Educ, 30, 760–778.
55.
YeX.PengW.ChenZ.CaiY.-Y. (2004). Today’s students, tomorrow’s engineers: An industrial perspective on CAD education. CAD Comput. Aid. Des, 36(14), 1451–1460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cad.2003.11.006
56.
YinR. K. (2003). Case study research design and methods. In Applied Social Research Methods Series (Vol. 5, pp. 252–272). Sage Publications.
57.
YolcuV.DemirerV. (2017). A review on the studies about the use of robotic. technologies in education. SDU International Journal of Educational Studies, 4(2), 127–139.
58.
YorekN.UguluI. (2015). A CFBPN artificial neural network model for educational qualitative data analyses: Example of students’ attitudes based on Kellerts’ typologies. Educational Research and Reviews, 10(18), 2606–2616. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2015.2370
59.
YorekN.UguluI.SahinM.DoganY. (2010). A qualitative investigation of students’ understanding about ecosystem and its components. Natura Montenegrina, 9(3), 973–981.
