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.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Benitti, F. B. V. (2012). Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 58(3), 978–988.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Eguchi, A. (2016). RoboCupJunior for promoting STEM education, 21st century skills, and technological advancement through robotics competition. Robotics and Autonomous Systems, 75, 692–699.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Johnson, J. (2003). Children, robotics, and education. Artificial Life and Robotics, 7(1), 16–21.
Jung, S. (2013). Experiences in developing an experimental robotics course program for undergraduate education. IEEE Transactions on Education, 56(1), 129–136.
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.
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.
Kirschner, P. A. (2017). Stop propagating the learning styles myth. Computers & Education, 106, 166–171.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Petre, M., & Price, B. (2004). Using robotics to motivate ‘back door’ learning. Education and Information Technologies, 9(2), 147–158.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251–296.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Xia, L., & Zhong, B. (2018). A systematic review on teaching and learning robotics content knowledge in K-12. Computers & Education, 127, 267–282.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
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
- Cooperative learning
- Pair programming
- Robotics education
- Pair learning
- Roles assignment
- Learning style