Top

TechTrends

Published in:

05-05-2022 | Original Paper

Evaluating the Impact of the Curriculum Structure on Group Metacognition During Collaborative Problem-solving Using Educational Robotics

Authors: Chrysanthos Socratous, Andri Ioannou

Published in: TechTrends | Issue 5/2022

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

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Educational robotics (ER) has emerged as a novel educational tool that enables students to improve their thinking skills. The study aims to compare the effect of a structured versus an unstructured ER curriculum on students’ group metacognition during collaborative problem-solving with ER. The authors’ hypothesis is that an unstructured ER curriculum might be more beneficial in supporting young learners’ group metacognition in programming contexts. This study follows a quasi-experimental design with students (n = 35) split into two comparison groups – a structured ER curriculum group and an unstructured one. The results show that students in the structured curriculum group demonstrated higher levels of group metacognition and better collaboration. Furthermore, using a micro-ecological approach, the study reveals that individual metacognitive contributions from students in the unstructured curriculum group had a systemic impact on the group work progress.

previous article Makers-in-Residence: an Apprenticeship Model for Supporting Pre-Service Elementary Teachers to Adopt Making Tools and Technologies

next article The Importance of Boundary Objects in Industry-Academia Collaborations to Support Evidencing the Efficacy of Educational Technology

Atmatzidou, S., Demetriadis, S., & Nika, P. (2018). How does the degree of guidance support students’ metacognitive and problem-solving skills in educational robotics? Journal of Science Education and Technology, 27(1), 70–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-017-9709-xCrossRef

Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1203_1CrossRef

Van der Stel, M., & Veenman, M. V. (2010). Development of metacognitive skillfulness: A longitudinal study. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(3), 220–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.11.005CrossRef

Barrows, H. S. (1996). Problem‐based learning in medicine and beyond: A brief overview. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1996(68), 3–12.

Biasutti, M., & Frate, S. (2018). Group metacognition in online collaborative learning: Validity and reliability of the group metacognition scale (GMS). Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(6), 1321–1338. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9583-0CrossRef

Borge, M., & Mercier, E. (2019). Towards a micro-ecological approach to CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 14(2), 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-019-09301-6CrossRef

Chambers, J. M., Carbonaro, M., Rex, M., & Grove, S. (2007). Scaffolding knowledge construction through robotic technology: A middle school case study. Electronic Journal for the Integration of Technology in Education, 6, 55–70

Chin, C., & Brown, D. E. (2000). Learning in science: A comparison of deep and surface approaches. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(2), 109–138. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2736)37:2%3C109::AID-TEA3%3E3.0.CO;2-7CrossRef

Craig, K., Hale, D., Grainger, C., & Stewart, M. E. (2020). Evaluating metacognitive self-reports: systematic reviews of the value of self-report in metacognitive research. Metacognition and Learning, 15(2), 155–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-020-09222-yCrossRef

Darabi, A., Arrington, T. L., & Sayilir, E. (2018). Learning from failure: A meta-analysis of the empirical studies. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66(5), 1101–1118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-018-9579-9CrossRef

Dierdorff, E. C., & Ellington, J. K. (2012). Members matter in team training: Multilevel and longitudinal relationships between goal orientation, self-regulation, and team outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 65(3), 661–703. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01255.xCrossRef

Du Toit, S., & Kotze, G. (2009). Metacognitive strategies in the teaching and learning of mathematics. Pythagoras, 2009(70), 57–67

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American psychologist, 34(10), 906. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906CrossRef

Fülöp, E. (2015). Teaching problem-solving strategies in mathematics. LUMAT (2013–2015 Issues), 3(1), 37–54

Gillies, R. M. (2003). The behaviors, interactions, and perceptions of junior high school students during small-group learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 137. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.137CrossRef

Hesse, F., Care, E., Buder, J., Sassenberg, K., & Griffin, P. (2015). A framework for teachable collaborative problem solving skills. Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills (pp. 37–56). Springer

Jacobse, A. E., & Harskamp, E. G. (2012). Towards efficient measurement of metacognition in mathematical problem solving. Metacognition and Learning, 7(2), 133–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-012-9088-xCrossRef

Janssen, J., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Kanselaar, G. (2012). Task-related and social regulation during online collaborative learning. Metacognition and Learning, 7(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-010-9061-5CrossRef

Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., Panadero, E., Malmberg, J., Phielix, C., Jaspers, J., et al. (2015). Enhancing socially shared regulation in collaborative learning groups: designing for CSCL regulation tools. Educational Technology Research and Development, 63(1), 125–142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-014-9358-1CrossRef

Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Toward a design theory of problem solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(4), 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02300500CrossRef

Jordan, M. E., & McDaniel, R. R., Jr. (2014). Managing uncertainty during collaborative problem solving in elementary school teams: The role of peer influence in robotics engineering activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(4), 490–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2014.896254CrossRef

Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26(3), 379–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802212669CrossRef

Kapur, M. (2011). A further study of productive failure in mathematical problem-solving: Unpacking the design components. Instructional Science, 39(4), 561–579. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-010-9144-3CrossRef

Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why unguided learning does not work: An analysis of the failure of discovery learning, problem-based learning, experiential learning and inquiry-based learning. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1CrossRef

Kramarski, B., & Mevarech, Z. R. (1997). Cognitive-metacognitive training within a problem‐solving based Logo environment. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 67(4), 425–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.1997.tb01256.xCrossRef

Socratous, C., & Ioannou, A. (2019). An empirical study of educational robotics as tools for group metacognition and collaborative knowledge construction. In Lund, K., Niccolai, G. P., Lavoué, E., Hmelo-Silver, C., Gweon, G., and Baker, M. (Eds.). A Wide Lens: Combining Embodied, Enactive, Extended, and Embedded Learning in Collaborative Settings, 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) (Vol. 2). International Society of the Learning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.22318/cscl2019.192

Kuhn, D. (2000). Metacognitive development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(5), 178–181CrossRef

La Paglia, F., Rizzo, R., & La Barbera, D. (2011). Use of robotics kits for the enhancement of metacognitive skills of mathematics: a possible approach. Annual Review of Cybertherapy and Telemedicine, 2011, 26–30

Lee, K. T., Sullivan, A., & Bers, M. U. (2013). Collaboration by design: Using robotics to foster social interaction in kindergarten. Computers in the Schools, 30(3), 271–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/07380569.2013.805676CrossRef

Loibl, K., & Rummel, N. (2014). The impact of guidance during problem-solving prior to instruction on students’ inventions and learning outcomes. Instructional Science, 42(3), 305–326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9282-5CrossRef

Lorenzo, M. (2005). The development, implementation, and evaluation of a problem solving heuristic. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 3(1), 33–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-004-8359-7CrossRef

Menekse, M., Higashi, R., Schunn, C. D., & Baehr, E. (2017). The role of robotics teams’ collaboration quality on team performance in a robotics tournament. Journal of Engineering Education, 106(4), 564–584. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20178CrossRef

Nathan, M. J., & Wagner Alibali, M. (2010). Learning sciences. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(3), 329–345. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.54CrossRef

Pugalee, D. K. (2001). Writing, mathematics, and metacognition: Looking for connections through students’ work in mathematical problem solving. School Science and Mathematics, 101(5), 236–245. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1949-8594.2001.tb18026.xCrossRef

Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 129–184. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci2202_1CrossRef

Siegel, M. A. (2012). Filling in the distance between us: Group metacognition during problem solving in a secondary education course. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(3), 325–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-011-9326-zCrossRef

Sinha, T., & Kapur, M. (2019). When productive failure fails. In A. K. Goel, C. M. Seifert, & C. Freska (Eds.), Proceedings of the 41th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2811–2817). Montreal, Canada

Socratous, C., & Ioannou, A. (2021). Structured or unstructured educational robotics curriculum? A study of debugging in block-based programming. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(6), 3081–3100. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10056-xCrossRef

Socratous, C., & Ioannou, A. (2018). A study of collaborative knowledge construction in STEM via educational robotics. In J. Kay & R. Luckin (Eds.), Rethinking Learning in the Digital Age: Making the Learning Sciences Count, 13th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) 2018 (Vol. 1, pp. 496–503). ISLS. https://doi.org/10.22318/cscl2018.496

Title: Evaluating the Impact of the Curriculum Structure on Group Metacognition During Collaborative Problem-solving Using Educational Robotics
Authors: Chrysanthos Socratous
Andri Ioannou
Publication date: 05-05-2022
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: TechTrends / Issue 5/2022
Print ISSN: 8756-3894
Electronic ISSN: 1559-7075
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-022-00738-5

Springer Professional

Evaluating the Impact of the Curriculum Structure on Group Metacognition During Collaborative Problem-solving Using Educational Robotics

Abstract

Premium Partner

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Other articles of this Issue 5/2022

The Importance of Boundary Objects in Industry-Academia Collaborations to Support Evidencing the Efficacy of Educational Technology

Computational Thinking in Education: Past and Present

Online Learning Satisfaction and Internet Addiction During Covid-19 Pandemic: A Two-Wave Longitudinal Study

An Overview of the Common Elements of Learning Management System Policies in Higher Education Institutions

Fostering School-Home Partnerships: Transforming Learning as a Result of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Introduction to the September 2022 Issue