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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Alavi, S. S., & Makarem, J. (2015). Learning style and attitude toward computer among Iranian medical students. Journal of Medical Education, 14(1), 20–25.

    Google Scholar 

  3. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978–988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Cockburn, A., & Williams, L. (2000). The costs and benefits of pair programming. In Extreme programming examined (pp. 223–247).

  12. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Eguchi, A. (2016). RoboCupJunior for promoting STEM education, 21st century skills, and technological advancement through robotics competition. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 692–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78(7), 674–681.

    Google Scholar 

  17. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Flowerday, T., Schraw, G., & Stevens, J. (2004). The role of choice and interest in reader engagement. Journal of Experimental Education, 72(2), 93–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  20. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Gregorc, A. F. (1982). An adult’s guide to style. Columbia, CT: Gregorc Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Johnson, J. (2003). Children, robotics, and education. Artificial Life and Robotics, 7(1), 16–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Jung, S. (2013). Experiences in developing an experimental robotics course program for undergraduate education. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(1), 129–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 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.

  29. Kayes, A. B., Kayes, D. C., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Experiential learning in teams. Simulation & Gaming, 36(36), 330–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kirschner, P. A. (2017). Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Computers & Education, 106, 166–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  33. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 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.

  36. 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).

  37. Lindh, J., & Holgersson, T. (2007). Does Lego training stimulate pupils’ ability to solve logical problems? Computers & Education, 49(4), 1097–1111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Okebukola, P. A. (2010). The influence of preferred learning styles on cooperative learning in science. Science Education, 70(5), 509–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Petre, M., & Price, B. (2004). Using robotics to motivate ‘back door’ learning. Education and Information Technologies, 9(2), 147–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  46. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  48. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  49. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. 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.

  55. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Xia, L., & Zhong, B. (2018). A systematic review on teaching and learning robotics content knowledge in K-12. Computers & Education, 127, 267–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  62. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Zhao, X. (2005). The features of different stages and grades students’ perception of teachers’ assessment behavior. Psychological Development and Education, 21(4), 61–67. https://doi.org/10.16187/j.cnki.issn1001-4918.2005.04.012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Zhong, B., & Li, T. (2019). Can pair learning improve students’ troubleshooting performance in robotics education. Journal of Educational Computing Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633119829191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Zhong, B., & Wang, Y. (2018). Exploration of the pair learning in robotics education. Modern Distance Education Research, 3, 66–74. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1009-5195.2018.03.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the General Project for Education from National Social Science Fund of China (Study on Pair Learning Model in Robotics Education in K-12, Grant Number BCA190088). The authors would like to thank Zhang Lu for revising teaching materials, and Xia Liying for thoughtful suggestions on this manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Baichang Zhong or Yanxia Wang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhong, B., Wang, Y. Effects of roles assignment and learning styles on pair learning in robotics education. Int J Technol Des Educ 31, 41–59 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09536-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Cooperative learning
  • Pair programming
  • Robotics education
  • Pair learning
  • Roles assignment
  • Learning style