Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Journal of Technology and Design Education
Published in: International Journal of Technology and Design Education 1/2021

01-07-2019

Effects of roles assignment and learning styles on pair learning in robotics education

Authors: Baichang Zhong, Yanxia Wang

Published in: International Journal of Technology and Design Education | Issue 1/2021

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Pair learning (PL) in robotics education is derived from pair programming, and impacted by many factors. Two important factors were identified including roles assignment and learning styles in this study. The roles assignment involved Driver–Navigator Pair and Software–Hardware Pair. For the learning style, the dimension of active/reflective was adopted. Therefore, a 2*3 factorial design was employed with the between-subjects factors roles assignment and learning styles. After a one-semester robotics course, we evaluated 66 fifth-grade students’ learning achievements, attitude towards robotics, engagement, mental efforts, compatibility, and attitude towards PL. The results indicated that there was no statistically significant difference among different pairs in the above six indicators. Moreover, there was no significant difference in the learning outcomes among pairs of different learning styles. One important explanation is that the joint effect of PL might bridge the difference in learning performance that may be caused by learning style.
previous article Technology in children’s picture books as an agent for reinforcing or challenging traditional gender stereotypes
next article Industry-school projects as an aim to foster secondary school students’ interest in technology and engineering careers

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
Literature
Adán-Coello, J. M., Tobar, C. M., de Faria, E. S. J., de Menezes, W. S., & de Freitas, R. L. (2011). Forming groups for collaborative learning of introductory computer programming based on students’ programming skills and learning styles. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 7(4), 34–46.CrossRef
Alavi, S. S., & Makarem, J. (2015). Learning style and attitude toward computer among Iranian medical students. Journal of Medical Education, 14(1), 20–25.
Aragon, S. R., Johnson, S. D., & Shaik, N. (2002). The influence of learning style preferences on student success in online versus face-to-face environments. The American Journal of Distance Education, 16(4), 227–243.CrossRef
Atmatzidou, S., & Demetriadis, S. (2016). Advancing students’ computational thinking skills through educational robotics: A study on age and gender relevant differences. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 661–670.CrossRef
Barak, M., & Assal, M. (2018). Robotics and stem learning: Students’ achievements in assignments according to the p3 task taxonomy—Practice, problem solving, and projects. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 28(1), 121–144.CrossRef
Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978–988.CrossRef
Bianco, A. S. (2014). Starting and teaching basic robotics in the classroom: Modern, engaging engineering in technology education. Technology and Engineering Teacher, 73, 32–38.
Bishop-Clark, C., Courte, J., & Howard, E. V. (2006). Programming in pairs with Alice to improve confidence, enjoyment, and achievement. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(2), 213–228.CrossRef
Chen, A., Darst, P. W., & Pangrazi, R. P. (1999). What constitutes situational interest? Validating a construct in physical education. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 3(3), 157–180.CrossRef
Cheng, C. C., Huang, P. L., & Huang, K. H. (2013). Cooperative learning in Lego robotics projects: Exploring the impacts of group formation on interaction and achievement. Journal of Networks, 8(7), 1529–1535.CrossRef
Cockburn, A., & Williams, L. (2000). The costs and benefits of pair programming. In Extreme programming examined (pp. 223–247).
Çolak, E. (2015). The effect of cooperative learning on the learning approaches of students with different learning styles. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 59, 17–34.
Correll, N., & Rus, D. (2010). Peer-to-peer learning in robotics education: Lessons from a challenge project class. Computers in Education Journal, 1(3), 60–66.
Di Lieto, M. C., Inguaggiato, E., Castro, E., Cecchi, F., Cioni, G., et al. (2017). Educational robotics intervention on executive functions in preschool children: A pilot study. Computers in Human Behavior, 71, 16–23.CrossRef
Eguchi, A. (2016). RoboCupJunior for promoting STEM education, 21st century skills, and technological advancement through robotics competition. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 692–699.CrossRef
Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674–681.
Felder, R. M., & Spurlin, J. E. (2005). Applications, reliability and validity of the index of learning styles. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning, 21(1), 103–112.
Flowerday, T., Schraw, G., & Stevens, J. (2004). The role of choice and interest in reader engagement. Journal of Experimental Education, 72(2), 93–114.CrossRef
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P., Friedel, J., & Paris, A. (2005). School engagement. In K. A. Moore & L. Lippman (Eds.), What do children need to flourish? Conceptualizing and measuring indicators of positive development (pp. 305–321). New York: Springer.CrossRef
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.CrossRef
Gregorc, A. F. (1982). An adult’s guide to style. Columbia, CT: Gregorc Associates Inc.
Hannay, J. E., Dybå, T., Arisholm, E., & Sjøberg, D. I. (2009). The effectiveness of pair programming: A meta-analysis. Information and Software Technology, 51(7), 1110–1122.CrossRef
Hwang, W. Y., & Wu, S. Y. (2014). A case study of collaboration with multi-robots and its effect on children’s interaction. Interactive Learning Environments, 22(4), 429–443.CrossRef
Jeong, A., & Lee, J. (2008). The effects of active versus reflective learning style on the processes of critical discourse in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. British Journal of Educational Technology, 39(4), 651–665.CrossRef
Johnson, J. (2003). Children, robotics, and education. Artificial Life and Robotics, 7(1), 16–21.CrossRef
Jung, S. (2013). Experiences in developing an experimental robotics course program for undergraduate education. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(1), 129–136.CrossRef
Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1994). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(4), 681–706.CrossRef
Kaufman, D. B., Felder, R. M., & Fuller, H. (1999). Peer ratings in cooperative learning teams. In Proceedings of the 1999 American society for engineering education, Charlotte, NC.
Kayes, A. B., Kayes, D. C., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Experiential learning in teams. Simulation & Gaming, 36(36), 330–354.CrossRef
Kirschner, P. A. (2017). Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Computers & Education, 106, 166–171.CrossRef
Kopcha, T. J., Mcgregor, J., Shin, S., Qian, Y., Choi, J., Hill, R., et al. (2017). Developing an integrative STEM curriculum for robotics education through educational design research. Journal of Formative Design in Learning, 1(1), 31–44.CrossRef
Kuo, Y. C., Chu, H. C., & Huang, C. H. (2015). A learning style-based grouping collaborative learning approach to improve EFL students’ performance in English courses. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 18(2), 284–298.
Lau, W. W. F., & Yuen, A. H. K. (2009). Exploring the effects of gender and learning styles on computer programming performance: Implications for programming pedagogy. British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(4), 696–712.CrossRef
Lau, W. W. F., & Yuen, A. H. K. (2010). Gender differences in learning styles: Nurturing a gender and style sensitive computer science classroom. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(7), 1090–1103.CrossRef
Layman, L. (2006). Changing students’ perceptions: An analysis of the supplementary benefits of collaborative software development. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Software Engineering Education & Training (pp. 159–166). IEEE.
Lee, C. I., & Yang, Y. F. (2015). A study on the effect of combination of pair programming with learning styles on students learning motivation. In Proceedings of the 2015 international conference on eBusiness, eCommerce, eManagement, eLearning and eGovernance (IC5E) (pp. 99–103).
Lindh, J., & Holgersson, T. (2007). Does Lego training stimulate pupils’ ability to solve logical problems? Computers & Education, 49(4), 1097–1111.CrossRef
Liu, E. Z. F., Lin, C. H., & Chang, C. S. (2010). Student satisfaction and self-efficacy in a cooperative robotics course. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 38(8), 1135–1146.CrossRef
Mosley, P., & Kline, R. (2006). Engaging students: A framework using LEGO® robotics to teach problem solving. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal, 24(1), 39–45.
Okebukola, P. A. (2010). The influence of preferred learning styles on cooperative learning in science. Science Education, 70(5), 509–517.CrossRef
Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63–71.CrossRef
Paas, F. G. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 429–434.CrossRef
Paas, F. G., Van Merriënboer, J. J., & Adam, J. J. (1994). Measurement of cognitive load in instructional research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79(1), 419–430.CrossRef
Petre, M., & Price, B. (2004). Using robotics to motivate ‘back door’ learning. Education and Information Technologies, 9(2), 147–158.CrossRef
Puurtinen, M., & Mappes, T. (2009). Between-group competition and human cooperation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 276(1655), 355–360.
Rahman, A., Ahmar, A., & Rusli, R. (2016). The influence of cooperative learning models on learning outcomes based on students’ learning styles. World Transactions on Engineering and Technology Education, 14(3), 425–430.CrossRef
Sandmire, D. A., & Boyce, P. F. (2004). Pairing of opposite learning styles among allied health students: Effects on collaborative performance. Journal of Allied Health, 33(2), 156–163.
Sandmire, D. A., Vroman, K. G., & Sanders, R. (2000). The influence of learning styles on collaborative performances of allied health students in a clinical exercise. Journal of Allied Health, 29(3), 143–149.
Schultz, B. D., & Oyler, C. (2006). We make this road as we walk together: Sharing teacher authority in a social action curriculum project. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(4), 423–451.CrossRef
Somyürek, S. (2015). An effective educational tool: Construction kits for fun and meaningful learning. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 25(1), 25–41.CrossRef
Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2016). Robotics in the early childhood classroom: Learning outcomes from an 8-week robotics curriculum in pre-kindergarten through second grade. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 26(1), 3–20.CrossRef
Sun, C. Y., & Rueda, R. (2012). Situational interest, computer self-efficacy and self-regulation: Their impact on student engagement in distance education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 191–204.CrossRef
Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.CrossRef
Taylor, K. (2016). Collaborative robotics, more than just working in groups: Effects of student collaboration on learning motivation, collaborative problem solving, and science process skills in robotic activities. Doctoral dissertation. Boise, ID: Boise State University.
Ucgul, M., & Cagiltay, K. (2014). Design and development issues for educational robotics training camps. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 24(2), 203–222.CrossRef
Umar, I. N., & Hui, T. H. (2012). Learning style, metaphor and pair programming: Do they influence performance? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 5603–5609.CrossRef
Van Gog, T., Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. (2008). Effects of studying sequences of process-oriented and product-oriented worked examples on troubleshooting transfer efficiency. Learning and Instruction, 18(3), 211–222.CrossRef
Wainer, J., Ferrari, E., Dautenhahn, K., & Robins, B. (2010). The effectiveness of using a robotics class to foster collaboration among groups of children with autism in an exploratory study. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 14(5), 445–455.CrossRef
Williams, L. A., & Kessler, R. R. (2000). All I really need to know about pair programming I learned in kindergarten. Communications of the ACM, 43(5), 108–114.CrossRef
Xia, L., & Zhong, B. (2018). A systematic review on teaching and learning robotics content knowledge in K-12. Computers & Education, 127, 267–282.CrossRef
Yuen, T. T., Boecking, M., Tiger, E. P., Gomez, A., Guillen, A., Arreguin, A., et al. (2014). Group tasks, activities, dynamics, and interactions in collaborative robotics projects with elementary and middle school children. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research, 15(1), 39–45.
Zhan, Z., Xu, F., & Ye, H. (2011). Effects of an online learning community on active and reflective learners’ learning performance and attitudes in a face-to-face undergraduate course. Computers & Education, 56(4), 961–968.CrossRef
Zhong, B., Wang, Q., & Chen, J. (2016). The impact of social factors on pair programming in a primary school. Computers in Human Behavior, 64, 423–431.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Effects of roles assignment and learning styles on pair learning in robotics education
Authors
Baichang Zhong
Yanxia Wang
Publication date
01-07-2019
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
International Journal of Technology and Design Education / Issue 1/2021
Print ISSN: 0957-7572
Electronic ISSN: 1573-1804
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09536-2

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

International Journal of Technology and Design Education 1/2021 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Exploring the effectiveness of STEAM design processes on middle school students’ creativity

OriginalPaper

Impact of user involvement on design students’ motivation and self-confidence

OriginalPaper

Supporting the development of students’ technological understanding in craft and technology education via the learning-by-doing approach

Obituary

Obituary Jacques Ginestié

OriginalPaper

The W-model: a pre-college design pedagogy for solving wicked problems

OriginalPaper

Industry-school projects as an aim to foster secondary school students’ interest in technology and engineering careers

Premium Partner

    Image Credits