www.ijcrsee.com
379
Izbasarovna, R. M. et al. (2025). Attitudes of Students and Teachers’ Opinions Towards Robotic Applications in Secondary
Schools, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 379-394.
Original scientific paper
Received: May 12, 2025.
Revised: June 26, 2025.
Accepted: July 17, 2025.
UDC:
316.644-057.874:[37:007.52(574)
10.23947/2334-8496-2025-13-2-379-394
© 2025 by the authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the
Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
*
Corresponding author:
revshenova@mail.ru
Abstract: The ongoing advancements in technology and their implications for robotics raise questions regarding high
school students’ attitudes toward robotic applications. The formation of teachers’ opinions is identified as a research gap alongside
these developments. This research aims to measure the attitudes of students in secondary schools towards robotic applications,
in terms of various variables and to evaluate teachers’ opinions. This research was designed as mixed methods research. The
sample of the research consisted of 469 students and 25 teachers. The quantitative data of the study were collected with the
robotics activity attitudes scale-RAAS, which was adapted to the language of the researchers. Qualitative data was collected
with the teacher interview form created by the researchers. Parametric tests, t-tests, and ANOVA were applied to the data set,
and weighted average, frequency, and percentage calculations were made. The data obtained from the teacher interview form
was transformed into findings using the descriptive analysis method. As a result of the research, it was determined that the
students had a high degree of robotic attitude. It was determined that students’ robotic attitudes showed a significant difference
in favor of male students according to the gender variable. There was no difference in students’ robotic attitudes depending on
the classroom variable, and a majority of teachers have a positive attitude towards the use of robotic applications in education
in Kazakh secondary schools. The attitudes and opinions of teachers and students towards robotic applications are positive.
Keywords: attitude, robotic applications, robotic attitude scale, secondary schools.
Revshenova Makhabbat Izbasarovna
1*
, Zhabayev Yermakhan
1
, Nurgul Kurmangaliyeva
1
, Kemelbek Maira
1
Elmira Uaidullakyzy
1
1
Department of Informatics and Informatization of education, Abai Kazakh National Pedagogical University, Almaty, Kazakhstan,
e-mail: revshenova@mail.ru, ermahan_zh.h@mail.ru, nkurmangali@gmail.com,
kemelbekmaira.99@gmail.com, elmira.uaidullakyzy1988@gmail.com
Attitudes of Students and Teachers’ Opinions Towards Robotic
Applications in Secondary Schools
Introduction
The perceived advantages of robotic applications in secondary education have been the subject of
numerous research, which have led to favorable attitudes among instructors and students. A substantial
amount of research highlights how educational robots increases student engagement and motivation,
especially in STEM education. According to Selcuk at el. (2024), integrating robotics into the curriculum
increased students’ interest in it and created a more dynamic and engaging learning environment. This
dedication is essential because increasing academic performance is directly related to intrinsic motiva-
tion, especially in subjects that find it difficult to pique students’ interest.
Additionally, the development of pupils’ computational thinking abilities has been linked to the use of
robotics in the classroom. According to Zhang at el. (2021), students’ views about STEM areas are reshaped
by robotics exposure, which also helps them develop their problem-solving abilities. Given the current
emphasis on developing the abilities required for the landscape facilitated by the technology of the future
workforce, this transition is essential. Teachers can better prepare students for postsecondary education
and careers in STEM fields by utilizing robotics, which helps close the skills gap in a number of industries.
Teachers have also realized how robotic applications can offer experiential learning possibilities
tailored to the needs of various students. According to Di Battista, et al. (2020), robots can specifically help
kids with special education needs by offering engaging and dynamic learning opportunities that were previ-
www.ijcrsee.com
380
Izbasarovna, R. M. et al. (2025). Attitudes of Students and Teachers’ Opinions Towards Robotic Applications in Secondary
Schools, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 379-394.
ously challenging to accomplish. Because robotic technologies may bridge learning gaps and establish fair
learning environments where all students can thrive, their versatility emphasizes the inclusion they offer.
It has also drawn attention to how enthusiastic teachers are about incorporating robotics into their
lesson plans. According to the study, educators are becoming more interested in integrating technology into
their lessons as they become aware of the educational benefits of robots (Piedade, 2021). Given that robot-
ics not only enhances student learning but also acts as a catalyst for teacher professional development, this
increased interest is indicative of a larger trend towards the modernization of educational processes. Teach-
ers frequently express their desire to employ these cutting-edge tools to enhance their technical proficiency
and pedagogical approaches, which will further enhance the teaching and learning environment.
Nevertheless, even while robotic applications are thought to have significant advantages in terms
of encouraging student engagement and enhancing teaching methods, it is crucial to investigate the
difficulties that accompany their use. A more thorough grasp of the advantages and disadvantages will
result in a more complete picture of how robots affects the educational landscape. While there are many
benefits to using robotic applications in secondary schools, there are also a number of drawbacks that
can have a big impact on instructors’ and students’ views. The difficulty of learning and utilizing robotic
technology is a common issue in the literature. According to Ortega-Ruiperez and Alcalde (2023), some
students view programming as a daunting undertaking requiring a certain set of technical skills. This can
deter students from participating in robotics-related activities. This sentiment highlights the necessity for
educators to address the robotics learning curve because programming anxiety can lead to a lack of inter-
est in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) subjects.
According to the teachers, the difficulties go beyond the pupils’ participation and encompass feel-
ings of inadequacy over their own robotics skills. According to Papadakis and Kalogiannakis (2020), a lot
of teachers are intimidated by their ignorance, which can make them hesitant to include robotic applica-
tions in their lessons. The rapid advancement of technology exacerbates this lack of confidence by caus-
ing a gap between instructors’ present skill levels and the requirements of modern educational tools. As a
result, the positive benefits that robotics can have on the classroom may be hampered because children
might not receive enough help or direction from teachers who feel unprepared.
Furthermore, Kucuk and Sisman’s (2020) study revealed notable differences in students’ openness
to robotic applications according to variables including gender and prior exposure to related technology.
According to their research, male students are more likely than female students to be confident and
enthusiastic about participating in robotics, which can help them overcome emotions of intimidation or
disinterest. In order to foster a more equitable learning environment, educational interventions should
be modified to account for these inequalities and guarantee that all students are included and actively
participate (Sahmurova, and Gursesli, 2020).
Teachers’ perspectives of the tools and training required for the successful integration of robots
in the classroom add another level of complication. According to Negrini (2020), teachers are generally
skeptical about the feasibility of incorporating robotic applications in the absence of sufficient institutional
support. Teachers frequently voice worries about a lack of resources, such as funding, workshops for
training, and necessary access to technology. This concern suggests that while educators acknowledge
the potential educational advantages of robotics-such as the ability to foster critical thinking and problem-
solving abilities-they also acknowledge the logistical obstacles that may jeopardize these prospects.
The combination of these elements implies that although everyone agrees that robotic applications
have the potential to improve educational outcomes, students and teachers should overcome a number
of obstacles that may make implementation more difficult. Promoting positive attitudes and optimizing the
impact of robotics in high school will require addressing these issues through focused training, resource
allocation, and the development of an inclusive learning environment. The use of robotics in secondary
education has generated a lot of discussion and exposed a variety of attitudes in both instructors and
students. The efficacy and sustainability of robotics in the educational environment are largely determined
by these attitudes, which are influenced by both individual experiences and institutional environments.
Students’ increased devotion to robotics applications is a common benefit, as seen by their enthusiastic
engagement in robotics camps and project-based learning activities. Such stimulating activities can sig-
nificantly boost pupils in STEM subjects, fostering a generation of people who want to pursue careers in
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, according to research by
Üçgül, and Altıok, (2022)
and Tiryaki and Adigüzel (2021). When robotics is included into the curriculum, students frequently report
www.ijcrsee.com
381
Izbasarovna, R. M. et al. (2025). Attitudes of Students and Teachers’ Opinions Towards Robotic Applications in Secondary
Schools, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 379-394.
feeling more motivated and interested in learning. This shows that robotics applications act as both in-
structional tools and catalysts to ignite a passion for technical materials.
On the other side of the spectrum, students’ excitement is contrasted with educators’ worries
about the long-term viability of robotic projects. Without a specific framework to guarantee their integra-
tion into the larger study program, Diken (2022) contends that the mere deployment of robotic technology
is inadequate and emphasizes the necessity of ongoing support and resources. In order to use robotic
applications effectively, teachers raise concerns about the resources’ accessibility, which necessitates the
availability of current professional development opportunities. This demonstrates the differences in prepa-
ration and resource availability, which affect teachers’ willingness to use robots in their lessons generally.
Furthermore, a significant body of literature offers a nuanced viewpoint on the overall effects of
robotic applications in the classroom. Although numerous research point to observable benefits including
enhanced teamwork and innovative problem-solving abilities (Zadok, 2020), these benefits need to be con-
sidered in the context of implementation difficulties. The potential benefits of robotics in education can be
hampered by a number of issues, according to educators, including varying levels of institutional support,
insufficient training, and financial limitations. Understanding these difficulties is crucial because it draws
attention to the intricate realities that instructors must deal with while implementing new technologies.
In their research, Zhong and Xia (2020) conducted a systematic review to explore the potential of
educational robotics in mathematics education. In their research, Zviel-Girshin and Shaham (2020) evalu-
ated robotic applications as a tool to develop technological thinking in early childhood. Di Battista, et al.
(2020) consulted teachers’ opinions on the effectiveness of robotic applications in education, and as a re-
sult of the research, teachers stated that robotic applications were effective for students with special needs.
Lebrasseur at el. (2021) used various robotic arms in their studies and revealed that children showed
significant improvements in performing their daily activities. Boyarinov and Samarina (2020) organized
an educational robotics course for teacher candidates as a research subject. MägiMägi, at el. (2021), dis-
cussed the effectiveness of using robotic toys in early childhood education to support children’s social and
emotional competence. In their research, Boada Maestre and Genís (2021) evaluated ethical issues in the
use and integration of educational robots in special education. In their research, Kanbul and Uzunboylu
(2017) evaluated the effectiveness of coding training and robotic applications in acquiring 21st-century.
Despite teachers’ concerns, research shows that there is a general sense of cautious optimism regard-
ing the use of robotics in the classroom. Concepts gathered from numerous studies indicate that the use of
robotic applications can result in a rich, multifaceted educational experience when schools offer the required
skills and infrastructure. The next generation of well-documented issues and the assurance that educators
and students feel prepared to interact with robotic technologies are prerequisites for this hopeful outlook.
Today, the work done in the 21st century for students, teachers and educational programs, which
are expressed as the three basic elements of education, are more valuable than in previous periods.
Research in the field evaluates the application of robotics in education at different levels and in different
areas of education. However, with the technological developments that are developing every day, with
their reflections on the field of robotics, there is still a question about the attitude of high school students
towards robotic applications. In parallel with these developments, we wonder how teachers’ opinions are
formed. It is very important that these issues are presented as a research gap.
Purpose of the Research
The purpose of this research is to measure the attitudes of students in secondary schools toward
robotic applications in terms of various variables and to evaluate teachers’ opinions. Following the re-
search purpose, the following hypotheses and research questions were developed.
H
1
: Students in secondary schools have high attitudes towards robotic applications.
H
2
:
The attitudes of students in secondary schools towards robotic applications differ according to gender.
H
3
: The attitudes of students in secondary schools towards robotic applications vary depending on the
class they study in.
1. What are the teachers’ opinions about the use of robotic applications in education in secondary schools?
2. What are teachers’ opinions about the advantages of using robotic applications in education?
3. What are teachers’ opinions about the disadvantages of using robotic applications in education?
www.ijcrsee.com
382
Izbasarovna, R. M. et al. (2025). Attitudes of Students and Teachers’ Opinions Towards Robotic Applications in Secondary
Schools, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 379-394.
4. What are teachers’ suggestions for increasing the use of robotic applications in education?
Materials and Methods
This section contains information about the research method, study group, development of the data
collection tool, collection and evaluation of data, and the ethical process of the research.
Research method
This research was designed as mixed methods research. Mixed method research design is a
design in which qualitative and quantitative data are collected and both designs are considered together.
The aim of this design, where two designs are used in a single study, is to allow a more detailed and com-
prehensive understanding of a phenomenon by using the advantages of qualitative and quantitative data
(
Sahmurova, at el. 2010; Sandelowski, 2000; Sezgin, at el. 2019). In this study, a mixed method design
was preferred to measure the attitudes of students in Kazakh secondary schools towards robotic applica-
tions in terms of various variables and to evaluate teachers’ opinions.
Participants
In this research, simple sampling technique is used. Simple random sampling is a technique in
which each element in the population has equal chance and probability of being selected. Here, the selec-
tion of elements depends entirely on chance or probability; therefore, this sampling technique is some-
times known as chance method. Simple random sampling is a basic sampling method and can easily be
a component of a more complex sampling method. The main feature of this sampling method is that each
sample has the same probability of being selected.
The quantitative sample group of the research consists of 469 students studying in various second-
ary schools in Kazakhstan in the 2024-2025 academic year. Likewise, simple sampling technique was
used to determine the sample group in collecting qualitative data. The qualitative sample group includes
25 teachers working in various secondary schools in Kazakhstan in the 2024-2025 academic year. Demo-
graphic information about students and teachers is given in Table 1.
Table 1. Demographic information of students and teachers.
Student
Gender F %
Female
211 44.9
Male
258 55.1
Class
F %
9th grade
138 29.4
10th grade
142 30.3
11th grade
189 40.3
Total
469 100
Teacher
Gender F %
Woman
11 44
Male
14 56
Total
25
100
Table 1 shows the demographic distribution of the students and teachers who participated in the
research. 44.9% of the students are female and 55.1% are male. 29.4% of the students participating in
the research are studying in the 10th grade, 30.3% are in the 11th grade and 40.3% are in the 12th grade.
44% of the teachers participating in the research are women and 56% are men.
www.ijcrsee.com
383
Izbasarovna, R. M. et al. (2025). Attitudes of Students and Teachers’ Opinions Towards Robotic Applications in Secondary
Schools, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 379-394.
Data collection tools
The quantitative data of the study were collected with the robotics activity attitudes scale-RAAS
(
Cross, et al. 2016), which was adapted to the language of the researchers. In the qualitative part of the
research, a teacher semi-structured interview form was developed by the researchers to evaluate teach-
ers’ opinions. The translated items were arranged in line with the opinions of experts and a temporary
scale form was created.
Robotics attitude scale
The original form of the scale was developed by Cross et al. (2016) The scale has a structure of 45
items and consists of 4 factors. The factors of the scale were determined as curiosity, interest, expectation,
trust, and identity. The Cronbach Alpha internal consistency coefficient of the scale was found to be 0.972.
Language Equivalence Study: The Robotic Attitude Scale form, which will be adapted into Kazakh,
was translated into Kazakh by 4 experts working in the field of linguistics who know both languages very
well. These translations were examined, taking into account expert suggestions, and a temporary Kazakh
form was created. It is intended that there will be no difference in meaning between the translation and
the original form. For this reason, the created Kazakh form was translated back into the original language
by experts using the back-translation method after 3 weeks. The Kazakh translation was compared with
the original scale, and the final version of the scale in Kazakh was created with the closest translations.
Pilot application: At this stage, the pilot application sample group of the scale was created and the
draft scale was applied to the sample group. 453 secondary school students participated in this part of the
research. 204 of the students are girls and 249 are boys. The students who participated in this part of the
research were not included in the main sample group of the research. 453 students met the sample size
criterion of 5 times the number of items required in factor analysis studies (Child, 2006).
Exploratory Factor Analysis: At this stage, the SPSS 25.0 statistical program was used. In the first
stage, it was checked whether the adapted scale had a normal distribution. Kolmogorov-Smirnov was
preferred as the normal distribution test. As a result of the application, the analysis made on the data set
(p=.052>.050) indicates a normal distribution. All items in the scale were used for exploratory factor analy-
sis. In this analysis, it was first aimed to test whether the sample size was sufficient. The value of 0.76 >
0.70 obtained from the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test revealed that exploratory factor analysis could be
performed on the data. Then, Bartlett’s Sphericity test was applied and the results were evaluated. Bar-
tlett’s Sphericity test (χ
2
=559.677, p=.000) showed that it was appropriate to perform exploratory factor
analysis on the data. At this stage, the eigenvalue was determined as 1, and principal component analysis
was performed. As a result of the analysis, a structure with 4 factors with an eigenvalue greater than 1
emerged. 13 items that could not be combined under factor structures and pointed to a different factor on
their own were removed from the scale. Then the analyses were repeated. As a result of repeated analy-
ses, similar stages were passed and the 24-item structure of the final form emerged. When the scree plot
was examined in the exploratory factor analysis, it was determined that the lowest load value was 0.575.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis: At this stage, the SPSS Amos 25.0 statistical program was used.
Goodness-of-fit indices were examined for confirmatory factor analysis. χ
2
/df (Chi-Square/Degree of
Freedom), NNFI (Non-Normed Fit Index), and RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) values
were taken as criteria for the fit of the model. In the analysis, these values are χ
2
/df= 1.354 (p=.000),
NNFI=.88, and RMSEA=.058, respectively. Hooper et al. (2013) set the value below 5 for χ
2
/df; They
recommended above .80 for NNFI and below .080 for RMSEA. Based on this view, it has been revealed
that the scale maintains its original structure in Kazakh culture.
The item factor loadings and Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients of the scale, which were finalized as a
result of confirmatory factor analysis, are given in Table 2.
www.ijcrsee.com
384
Izbasarovna, R. M. et al. (2025). Attitudes of Students and Teachers’ Opinions Towards Robotic Applications in Secondary
Schools, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 379-394.
Table 2. Robotics attitude scale item factor loadings
Factor
Item
Expression on Scale
Item Total
Correlation
Cronbach’s
Alpha
Desire to Learn
1 I would like to learn more about robotics .681
.792
2 I enjoy learning new information about robots. .622
3 I enjoy doing robotics activities .615
4 I know I can learn a lot about robots. .641
5 I research as much information about robots as I can. .639
6 Learning about robots is important to me. .674
7 I like watching TV shows and/or reading books about robots. .621
8 I’m interested in discovering things about robots. .655
9 Even if it’s complicated, I’d love to learn everything about robotics. .626
10 I enjoy exploring new ideas about robotics. .664
11 Robotics interests me. .648
12 I’m curious about how robots work .645
Confidence
13 I am a person who can be an expert in the field of robotics. .588
.866
14 I can write a computer program. .592
15 I can program a robot. .603
16 I am confident in my ability to build robots. .583
17 I’m good at making robots. .575
18 I can build a robot. .579
Compu-
tational
Thinking
19 I’m good at thinking logically .720
.812
20 I like solving complex problems. .718
21 I solve problems logically. .733
Team
work
22 I can convey my ideas to my group. .786
.82323 I am a good group member .815
24 I enjoy working in groups. .792
Cronbach’s Alpha for the Whole Scale .816
In Table 2, the item totals and Cronbach’s Alpha of the robotic attitude view are given as a basis to
dissemi
nate the language for the collection of research. In the reliability analysis of the 4-factor structure
of the scale, the Cronbach’s Alpha value of the desire to learn sub-dimension was found to be 0.792, the
Cronbach’s Alpha value of the self-confidence sub-dimension was 0.866, the Cronbach’s Alpha value of
the computational thinking sub-dimension was 0.812 and the Cronbach’s Alpha value of the teamwork sub-
dimension was 0.823. Cronbach’s Alpha value for the overall robotic attitude scale was found to be 0.816.
The scale is a 5-point Likert type. In this rating scale, score ranges are considered equal. According to this;
the Range from 1.00 to 1.80 Strongly Disagree; 1.81 to 2.60 range Disagree; 2.61 to 3.40 range Partially
Agree; The range of 3.41 to 4.20 is rated Agree and the range 4.21 to 5.00 is rated as Strongly agree.
Teacher interview form
A literature review was conducted during the preparation of the teacher interview form. Then, the
questions created for the interviews with the teachers were presented to the opinions of 3 field experts.
The questions were rearranged in line with expert opinions and asked to 2 secondary school teachers. At
this stage, it was evaluated whether there were any unclear points in the questions. The questions, which
were stated to have semantic validity by the teachers, were arranged in a semi-structured interview form
format and made ready for application. The questions in the teacher interview form are given below.
www.ijcrsee.com
385
Izbasarovna, R. M. et al. (2025). Attitudes of Students and Teachers’ Opinions Towards Robotic Applications in Secondary
Schools, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 379-394.
1. What are your views on the use of robotic applications in education in Kazakh secondary schools?
Evaluate by choosing one of the Positive, Undecided, or Negative categories.
2. What are your views on the advantages of using robotic applications in education?
3. What are your views on the disadvantages of using robotic applications in education?
4. What are your suggestions for increasing the use of robotic applications in education?
Data collection process
The quantitative data of the research were collected by applying the robotics attitude scale to
teachers via Google Forms. Teacher interview form data was collected through face-to-face interviews
with teachers. The robotic attitude scale application time was determined as approximately 20-25 min-
utes. The average duration of the teacher interview form application was determined as 20 minutes. The
language adaptation phase implementation phase of the scale and the implementation phases of the
interview forms were completed in approximately 2 months.
Ethics
At each stage of the research, a signed declaration form was received from the teachers and students
who participated in the research, declaring their voluntary participation. To researchers; A form was prepared
and delivered regarding the method, purpose of application of the research, process, and ethical principles
regarding the use of data. Teachers and students who voluntarily agreed to participate in the research by
reading the information in the consent form were included in the research. In addition, the principles of re-
search and publication ethics were followed in all processes during which the research was conducted.
Data analysis
In the scale adaptation phase of the research, SPSS 25.0 was used for exploratory factor analysis
and SPSS Amos 25.0 was used for confirmatory factor analysis. SPSS 25.0 statistical program was used
to analyze the research data. To evaluate normal distribution, Kolmogorow-Smirnov test results were exam-
ined and (p <0.05) it was seen that the data set was normally distributed. Parametric tests were performed
on the data set obtained from the robotics attitude scale. Independent samples t-test was used in the analy-
sis of bivariate data, and ANOVA, weighted average, frequency, and percentage calculations were used in
the analysis of more than two variable data. Descriptive analysis technique was used in the analysis of quali-
tative data. The purpose of descriptive analysis is to present the data collected as a result of interviews or
observations to the reader in an organized and interpreted way (Marshall, 1996). The data obtained from the
teacher interview form were categorized by frequency and percentage calculations and presented in tables.
Results
Findings from the Robotics Attitude Scale
Table 3 shows the sub-dimensions of the robotics attitude scale and the weighted averages and
standard deviations of the students participating in the research for the overall scale.
Table 3. Robotics attitude scale
M SS
Desire to learn 3.87 0.679
Confidence 3.91 0.651
Computational thinking 3.65 0.610
Teamwork 3.80 0.688
Robotics attitude scale 3.81 0.654
In Table 3, sub-dimensions of the robotic attitude scale and information regarding the overall scale
are presented. Weighted averages and standard deviations were calculated. Willingness to learn sub-
dimension (M=3.87, SD=0.679), self-confidence sub-dimension (M=3.91, SD=0.651), computational
www.ijcrsee.com
386
Izbasarovna, R. M. et al. (2025). Attitudes of Students and Teachers’ Opinions Towards Robotic Applications in Secondary
Schools, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 379-394.
thinking sub-dimension (M=3.65, SD=0.610), teamwork the weighted average and standard deviations of
the sub-dimension (M=3.80, SD=0.688) were calculated. For the overall robotic attitude scale (M=3.81,
SD=0.654), weighted means and standard deviations were determined. These findings reveal that stu-
dents have high attitudes in the sub-dimensions of the robotics attitude scale and the overall scale.
In Table 4, the t-test results of the students participating in the research according to gender vari-
able are given within the scope of the robotic attitude scale.
Table 4. T-test results of independent variables according to gender variable
Gender N M SD F p
Female 211 3.51 0.815 14.533 .000
Male 258 4.05 0.644
Table 4 shows the robotic attitudes of the students participating in the research according to gender variable. T-test results of
independent variables were evaluated. As a result of the independent variables T-test, it was determined that the students’
robotic attitudes showed a signicant difference according to the gender variable (F = 14.533, p < 0.5). The signicant difference
was found to be in favor of male students.
In Table 5, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) results is given within the scope of the robotic
attitude scale, according to the class variable of the students participating in the research.
Table 5. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) results according to the class variable
Class N M SD F P
9th grade 138 3.78 0.649 4,503 .205
10th grade 142 3.75 0.625
11th grade 189 3.86 0.685
In Table 5, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) results of the robotic attitudes of the students
participating in the research were evaluated according to the variable of the class they were studying in.
As a result of a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), it was determined that the robotic attitudes of the
students did not show a significant difference according to the variable of the class they were studying in
(F = 4.503, p > 0.5).
Findings from the teacher interview form
In Table 6, the questions of the teachers who participated in the research were asked: “ What are
your opinions about the use of robotic applications in education in Kazakh secondary schools?” Their
answers to the question were evaluated.
Table 6. Views on the use of robotic applications in education in Kazakh secondary schools
Category F %
Positive 18 72
Indecisive
4 16
Negative
3 12
Total
25
100
In Table 6, the questions of the teachers who participated in the research were asked: “ What are
your opinions about the use of robotic applications in education in Kazakh secondary schools?” Their an-
swers to the question were categorized. 72% of the teachers who participated in the study stated that they
had a positive attitude toward the effectiveness of using mobile applications to teach robotics to students.
While 16% of the teachers stated that they were undecided, 12% stated that they had a negative attitude.
Table 7 shows the questions of the teachers who participated in the research: “ What are your
opinions about the advantages of using robotic applications in education?” Their answers to the question
were evaluated.
www.ijcrsee.com
387
Izbasarovna, R. M. et al. (2025). Attitudes of Students and Teachers’ Opinions Towards Robotic Applications in Secondary
Schools, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 379-394.
Table 7. Opinions about the advantages of using robotic applications in education
Teacher Opinions F %
Supports the use of technology in education 18 72
Improves students’ learning skills 13 52
Improves the learning process 11 44
Provides permanence in learning 7 28
Increases interest in robotic applications 5 20
Increases students’ motivation 2 8
Table 7 shows the questions of the teachers who participated in the research: “ What are your
opinions about the advantages of using robotic applications in education?” Their answers to the question
were categorized. 72% of teachers support the use of technology in education, 52% say it improves stu-
dents’ learning skills, and 44% say it improves the learning process. 28% of the teachers answered that
it provides permanence in learning, 20% said it increases interest in robotic applications, and 8% said it
increases students’ motivation.
Table 8 shows the questions of the teachers who participated in the research: “What are your opin-
ions about the disadvantages of using robotic applications in education?” Their answers to the question
were evaluated.
Table 8. Views on the disadvantages of using robotic applications in education
Teacher Opinions F %
There is a shortage of experienced teachers 16 64
It is a costly application 10 40
Causes overexposure to technology 6 24
In-service training programs for teachers are insufficient
4 16
Preparing for an event takes a lot of time 1 4
In Table 8, the questions of the teachers who participated in the research were asked, “What are
your opinions about the disadvantages of using robotic applications in education?” Their answers to the
question were categorized. 64% of the teachers responded that there is a lack of experienced teachers,
40% responded that it is a costly practice, and 24% responded that it causes too much exposure to
technology. Additionally, 16% of teachers responded that in-service training programs for teachers are
inadequate and 4% responded that preparing activities takes too much time.
In Table 9, the teachers who participated in the research asked “What are your suggestions for
increasing the use of robotic applications in education?” Their answers to the question were evaluated.
Table 9. Suggestions for increasing the use of robotic applications in education
Teacher Opinions
F %
A curriculum should be created in teacher training programs regarding robotic applications 20 80
Teachers should be given in-service training on robotic applications
19 76
Robotics application opportunities in schools should be increased
8 32
Students should be informed about the effectiveness of robotic applications
7 28
Seminars on robotic applications should be organized for teachers and students in schools 4 16
In Table 9, the teachers who participated in the research asked “What are your suggestions for
increasing the use of robotic applications in education?” Their answers to the question were categorized.
80% of the teachers stated that a curriculum should be created in teacher training programs regarding
robotic applications. 76% of the teachers responded that teachers should be given in-service training
regarding robotic applications. 32% of the teachers stated that robotic application opportunities in schools
should be increased, 28% stated that students should be informed about the effectiveness of robotic ap-
plications, and 16% stated that seminars on robotic applications should be organized for teachers and
students in schools.
www.ijcrsee.com
388
Izbasarovna, R. M. et al. (2025). Attitudes of Students and Teachers’ Opinions Towards Robotic Applications in Secondary
Schools, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 379-394.
Discussions
It was determined that the students participating in the research had highly positive attitudes in the
sub-dimensions of the robotics attitude scale and the overall scale. Graffin et al. (2022) also examined
the effect of the robotics competition organized in their research on students’ attitudes toward science
courses. The findings obtained from the research reveal that students’ robotic attitudes are high and that
their high robotic attitudes also positively affect their attitudes toward science courses. Muniandy et al.
(2022) similarly stated in their research that the robotics program had a positive and significant effect on
students’ attitudes toward science.
It was determined that students’ robotic attitudes showed a significant difference according to the
gender variable. The significant difference was in favor of male students, and it was observed that the
robotic attitudes of male students were higher than female students. In their study, Van Wassenaer et al.
(2023) revealed that there were differences between male and female students in the context of robotics
education. It was stated in the research that this difference was in favor of male students.
The students participating in the research did not show a significant difference according to the
class variable in which they studied. Findings reveal that students exhibit similar robotic attitudes. Gezgin
et al. (2022) similarly revealed in their research that secondary school students’ attitudes towards robotics
and coding education were generally positive.
The majority of teachers participating in the research stated that they had positive attitudes toward
the use of robotic applications in education in Kazakh secondary schools. Gezgin et al. (2022) stated in
his research that teachers’ attitudes towards educational robotics were positive, which is consistent with
the findings of this research.
Teachers participating in the research were asked about their opinions on the advantages of using
robotic applications in education. Teachers listed these advantages as supporting the use of technology
in education, improving students’ learning skills, improving the learning process, ensuring permanence in
learning, increasing interest in robotic applications, and increasing students’ motivation. Tzagaraki et al.
(2022) evaluated teachers’ attitudes towards robotic applications in education in their research. Research
findings revealed that teachers are of the opinion that robotic applications improve the learning process,
improve students’ skills, and increase participation in robotic activities.
Teachers were asked about their opinions on the disadvantages of using robotic applications in
education. Teachers listed these disadvantages as a lack of experienced teachers, high cost of implemen-
tation, excessive exposure to technology, the inadequacy of in-service training programs for teachers, and
the fact that preparing activities takes a lot of time. According to Negrini (2020), some of the factors limit-
ing robotic applications are costs, the time required to prepare the activities, and the fact that technologies
are extensively present in our daily lives therefore some teachers do not want to bring them to school.
Teachers participating in the research were asked for their suggestions on increasing the use of
robotic applications in education. The majority of teachers stated that a curriculum should be created in
teacher training programs regarding robotic applications and in-service training should be provided to
teachers regarding robotic applications. In addition, teachers suggested that schools should increase
robotic application opportunities, inform students about the effectiveness of robotic applications, and or-
ganize seminars on robotic applications for teachers and students in schools. In their study, zagaraki et
al. (2022) emphasized the difficulties of teachers learning and applying robotic applications and revealed
the necessity of education in this field.
Conclusions
In the age of technology, we live in, an approach to education independent of technology is almost
unthinkable. As technology develops in every aspect of life, it opens the door to innovations in education.
The integration of robots, one of the developing technologies in recent years, into education has created
a new understanding of education. Therefore, this study aimed to measure the attitudes of students in
Kazakh secondary schools towards robotic applications in terms of various variables and to evaluate
teachers’ opinions. As a result of the research, it was determined that students’ attitudes towards robotic
applications in education were high. It is an expected result that male students have higher robotic at-
www.ijcrsee.com
389
Izbasarovna, R. M. et al. (2025). Attitudes of Students and Teachers’ Opinions Towards Robotic Applications in Secondary
Schools, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 379-394.
titudes than female students. In information technologies, male students always have higher attitudes or
perceptions than female students. However, it is also an expected result that there are no differences in
students’ attitudes according to the classes they study. Because, attitudes towards information technolo-
gies are formed at a young age. While children play games in electronic environments, their information
attitudes are also formed. The majority of teachers participating in the research have positive attitudes
towards the use of robotic applications in education in Kazakh secondary schools.
There are advantages of robotic applications in education by teachers; It is expressed as support-
ing the use of technology in education, improving students’ learning skills, improving the learning process,
ensuring permanence in learning, increasing interest in robotic applications, and increasing students’
motivation. The disadvantages expressed by teachers are; lack of experienced teachers, high cost of im-
plementation, excessive exposure to technology, inadequacy of in-service training programs for teachers,
and the fact that preparing activities takes a lot of time. Teachers’ suggestions for increasing the use of
robotic applications in education are; Creating curricula in teacher training programs on robotic applica-
tions, providing in-service training to teachers on robotic applications, increasing robotic application op-
portunities in schools, informing students about the effectiveness of robotic applications, and organizing
seminars on robotic applications for teachers and students in schools.
Recommendations
The following suggestions were developed in line with the findings obtained from the research and
teachers’ opinions;
1. Although there is a need for practices to increase the robotic attitudes of all students, activities
should be organized within the school to improve the robotic attitudes of especially female students.
2. The content regarding robotic applications in teacher training programs should be expanded, and
teachers should be given in-service training on robotic applications.
3. Robotic application opportunities in schools should be increased and students and teachers should
be informed.
4. Inclusive training seminars for teachers and students regarding robotic applications should be or-
ganized in schools.
5. This research can be repeated on a larger scale. It can be done more comprehensively, especially
by including the subject of STEM. Similarly, it is recommended that experimental studies be con-
ducted on this subject.
Acknowledgment
The article was prepared with the financial support of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education
of the Republic of Kazakhstan, as part of a grant study: NoAP19579496 “Development of a mobile ap-
plication for teaching robotics to students of secondary Kazakh schools”.
Author Contributions
Project Management, R.M.I; Conceptualization, E.U; methodology, Z.Y.; software, N.K.; formal
analysis, N.K.; writing—original draft preparation, K.M. and R.M.I; writing—review and editing, R.M.I and
E.U. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Conflict of interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
www.ijcrsee.com
390
Izbasarovna, R. M. et al. (2025). Attitudes of Students and Teachers’ Opinions Towards Robotic Applications in Secondary
Schools, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 379-394.
References
Boada, J. P., Maestre, B. R., & Genís, C. T. (2021). The ethical issues of social assistive robotics: A critical literature re-
view. Technology in Society, 67, 101726. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101726
Boyarinov, D. & Samarina, A. E. (2020). The Potential of Educational Robotics in Teacher Education. ARPHA Proceedings, 3,
259–276.
https://doi.org/10.3897/ap.2.e0259
Child, D. (2006). The essentials of factor analysis. Third Ed. Continuum, London.
Cross, J., Hamner, E., Zito, L., Nourbakhshh, I., & Bernstein, D. (2016, October). Development of an assessment for measuring
middle school student attitudes towards robotics activities. In 2016 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE), 1-8.
IEEE.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2016.7757677
Di Battista, S., Pivetti, M., Moro, M., & Menegatti, E. (2020). Teachers’ opinions towards educational robotics for special needs
students: An exploratory Italian study. Robotics, 9(3), 72.
https://doi.org/10.3390/robotics9030072
Diken, S. (2022). Using educational robotics to determine secondary school students’ attitude change towards STEM (Bachelor›s
thesis, University of Twente).
https://purl.utwente.nl/essays/91601
Gezgin, DM., Azaz, E., & Atabay, E. (2022). The effects of cooperative learning attitude, perception of problem-solving skills and
personality types on the success of secondary school students in robotics and coding education: A causal comparison re-
search. Journal of Instructional Technologies and Teacher Education, 11(2), 28-42. https://doi.org/10.51960/jitte.1165083
Grafn, M., Shefeld, R., & Koul, R. (2022). ‘More than robots’: Reviewing the impact of the FIRST® LEGO® league challenge
robotics competition on school students’ STEM attitudes, learning, and twenty-rst century skill development. Journal
for STEM Education Research, 5(3), 322-343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41979-022-00078-2
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & R. Mullen, M. (2013). The servicescape as an antecedent to service quality and behavioral inten-
tions. Journal of services marketing, 27(4), 271-280.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08876041311330753
Kanbul, S., & Uzunboylu, H. (2017). Importance of Coding Education and Robotic Applications for Achieving 21st-Century Skills in
North Cyprus. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v12i01.6097
Kewalramani, S., Palaiologou, I., Dardanou, M., Allen, K. A., & Phillipson, S. (2021). Using robotic toys in early childhood
education to support children’s social and emotional competencies. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 46(4),
355-369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/18369391211056668
Kucuk, S., & Sisman, B. (2020). Students’ attitudes towards robotics and STEM: Differences based on gender and robotics ex-
perience. International Journal of Child-Computer Interaction, 23, 100167.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijcci.2020.100167
Lebrasseur, A., Lettre, J., OT, MSc, Routhier, F., PEng, PhD, Archambault, P. S., OT, PhD, & Campeau-Lecours, A., PEng,
PhD, PMP (2021). Assistive robotic arm: Evaluation of the performance of intelligent algorithms. Assistive technology :
the ofcial journal of RESNA, 33(2), 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400435.2019.1601649
Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family practice, 13(6), 522-526. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08876041311330753
Mägi, E., Kendrali, E., Siarova, H., Didika, J., Ivanova, B., Plavšić, E. P., Yeasmin, N., Koivurova, T., Ayonghe, A., Auger, N., Koehler,
C., Palaiologou, N., Khachatryan, S., Valentino, M., Kambel, E. R., Fjæstad, D., Wasilewska, O., Gajewska - Dyszkiewicz,
A., Przybysz, I., ... Teklemariam, K. (2021). National Round Tables 2020 Comparative Report. SIRIUS.
https://lacris.ulap-
land./ws/portalles/portal/21959741/Sirius_2.0_year_3_NRTs_Comparative_Report_2020.pdf
Muniandy, T., Sharif, S., & Mariappan, M. (2022). The Effect of Robotics Program on Students Attitude Towards Science. Ma-
laysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (MJSSH), 7(4), e001422. https://doi.org/10.47405/mjssh.v7i4.1422
Negrini, L. (2020). Teachers’ attitudes towards educational robotics in compulsory school. Italian Journal of Educational Tech-
nology, 28(1), 77-90. https://doi.org/10.17471/2499-4324/1136
Ortega-Ruipérez, B., & Lázaro Alcalde, M. (2023). Teachers’ perception about the difculty and use of programming and robotics in
the classroom. Interactive Learning Environments, 31(10), 7074-7085. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2061007
Papadakis, S., & Kalogiannakis, M. (2020). Exploring preservice teachers’ attitudes about the usage of educational robotics in
preschool education. In Handbook of research on tools for teaching computational thinking in P-12 Education, 339-355.
IGI Global. http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-4576-8.ch013
Piedade, J. M. N. (2021). Pre-service and in-service teachers’ interest, knowledge, and self-condence in using educational
robotics in learning activities. Educação & Formação, 6(1).
Sahmurova, A., & Gursesli, M. C. (2020). Effects of noise pollution on anger and smoking addiction in college students. Medi-
cine, 56(46), 9-7. [Google Scholar]
Sahmurova, A., Brent Phillip Duncan, K.B., & Mustafayeva, S. (2010). Antifungal Activity of the Essential Oils ofPyrethrum
leptophyllum Stev. ex Bieb. Journal of Residuals Science & Technology, 7.
Sandelowski, M. (2000). Combining qualitative and quantitative sampling, data collection, and analysis techniques in mixed-meth-
od studies. Research in nursing & health, 23(3), 246-255. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-240X(200006)23:3%3C246::AID-
NUR9%3E3.0.CO;2-H
www.ijcrsee.com
391
Izbasarovna, R. M. et al. (2025). Attitudes of Students and Teachers’ Opinions Towards Robotic Applications in Secondary
Schools, International Journal of Cognitive Research in Science, Engineering and Education (IJCRSEE), 13(2), 379-394.
Selcuk, N. A., Kucuk, S., & Sisman, B. (2024). Does really educational robotics improve secondary school students’ course motivation,
achievement and attitude?. Education and Information Technologies, 1-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12773-1
Sezgin, N., Balkaya, N., Sahmurova, A., & Aysal, N. (2019). Assessment of heavy metal contamination in urban soil (Tuzla
District, Istanbul, Turkey). Desalination and Water Treatment, 172, 167-176. https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2019.25023
Tiryaki, A., & Adigüzel, S. (2021). The Effect of STEM-Based Robotic Applications on the Creativity and Attitude of Students.
Journal of science learning, 4(3), 288-297.
https://doi.org/10.17509/jsl.v4i3.29683
Tzagaraki, E., Papadakis, S., & Kalogiannakis, M. (2022). Teachers’ attitudes on the use of educational robotics in primary
school. In STEM, robotics, mobile apps in early childhood and primary education: Technology to promote teaching and
learning, 257-283. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-0568-1_13
Üçgül, M., & Altıok, S. (2022). You are an astroneer: The effects of robotics camps on secondary school students’ perceptions
and attitudes towards STEM. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 32(3), 1679-1699.
https://link.
springer.com/article/10.1007/s10798-021-09673-7
Van Wassenaer, N., Tolboom, J., & van Beekum, O. (2023). The Effect of Robotics Education on Gender Differences in STEM Atti-
tudes among Dutch 7th and 8th Grade Students. Education Sciences, 13(2), 139. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13020139
Zadok, Y. (2020). Project-based learning in robotics meets junior high school. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technol-
ogy, 18(5), 941-958. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-01-2019-0023
Zhang, Y., Luo, R., Zhu, Y., & Yin, Y. (2021). Educational robots improve K-12 students’ computational thinking and
STEM attitudes: Systematic review. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 59(7), 1450-1481. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0735633121994070
Zhong, B., & Xia, L. (2020). A systematic review on exploring the potential of educational robotics in mathematics education. In-
ternational Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18(1), 79-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10763-018-09939-y
Zviel-Girshin, R., Luria, A., & Shaham, C. (2020). Robotics as a tool to enhance technological thinking in early childhood. Journal
of Science Education and Technology, 29(2), 294-302. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10956-020-09815-x
