In Robotics Education (RE), the hands-on experience with troubleshooting problems is seen as a good catalyst to enhance the participants’ problem-solving skills. Based on the pedagogical technique of collaborative learning and pair programming, pair learning is an emerging and potential method in RE, which means that students collaborate in pairs to construct, build, and program a robot under scripted but switchable roles. As a special collaborative learning, can pair learning also improve students’ troubleshooting performance in RE? Therefore, we conducted a comparison experiment (pair learning versus individual learning) in two classes at a Robot Summer Camp for high school students. The results indicated that (a) in the process of learning making robot artifacts, students in pair learning group (PLG) had a higher success rate in troubleshooting than that of individual learning group (ILG), but failed in other indicators and (b) in the summative test, the troubleshooting performance of students in PLG was similar with that of ILG. The findings showed that, in terms of troubleshooting, collaborative (pair) learning does not always has the superiority over individual learning in RE, which implicates other factors to be explored in future research. Implications for teaching are also discussed in this exploratory study.
AlimisisD. (2013) Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science and Technology Education6(1): 63–71.
2.
AvsecS.RihtarsicD.KocijancicS. (2016) The impact of robotics-enhanced approach on students' satisfaction in open learning environment. International Journal of Engineering Education32(2): 804–817.
3.
AyresP. (2006) Using subjective measures to detect variations of intrinsic load within problems. Learning and Instruction16: 389–400.
4.
BarakM.ZadokY. (2009) Robotics projects and learning concepts in science, technology and problem solving. International Journal of Technology & Design Education19(3): 289–307.
5.
BalijepallyV.MahapatraR.NerurS.PriceK. H. (2009) Are two heads better than one for software development? The productivity paradox of pair programming. MIS Quarterly33(1): 91–118.
6.
BenittiF. B. V. (2012) Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: A systematic review. Computers & Education58(3): 978–988.
7.
BersM. U.FlanneryL.KazakoffE. R.SullivanA. (2014) Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers and Education72: 145–157.
8.
BersM. U.PortsmoreM. (2005) Teaching partnerships: Early childhood and engineering students teaching math and science through robotics. Journal of Science Education and Technology14(1): 59–73.
9.
BiancoA. S. (2014) Starting and teaching basic robotics in the classroom: Modern, engaging engineering in technology education. Technology & Engineering Teacher73: 32–38.
10.
Bishop-ClarkC.CourteJ.HowardE. V. (2006) Programming in pairs with Alice to improve confidence, enjoyment, and achievement. Journal of Educational Computing Research34(2): 213–228.
11.
BounckenR. B.KrausS. (2013) Innovation in knowledge-intensive industries: The double-edged sword of coopetition. Journal of Business Research66(10): 2060–2070.
12.
ChengC. C.HuangP. L.HuangK. H. (2013) Cooperative learning in Lego robotics projects: Exploring the impacts of group formation on interaction and achievement. JNW8(7): 1529–1535.
13.
ChoiK. S. (2015) A Comparative analysis of different gender pair combinations in pair programming. Behaviour & Information Technology34(8): 825–837.
14.
Crismond, D. P. (2011). Scaffolding strategies for integrating engineering design and scientific inquiry in project-based learning environments. In Fostering human development through engineering and technology education (pp. 235–255). Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
15.
DenisB.HubertS. (2001) Collaborative learning in an educational robotics environment. Computers in Human Behavior17(5): 465–480.
16.
Di LietoM. C.InguaggiatoE.CastroE.CecchiF.CioniG.Dell’OmoM.LaschiC.PeciniC.SanteriniG.SgandurraG.DarioP. (2017) Educational robotics intervention on executive functions in preschool children: A pilot study. Computers in Human Behavior71: 16–23.
17.
Dounas-FrazerD. R.LewandowskiH. J. (2017) Electronics lab instructors’ approaches to troubleshooting instruction. Physical Review Physics Education Research113(1): 1–17.
18.
Fields, D. A., Searle, K. A., & Kafai, Y. B. (2016). Deconstruction kits for learning: Students’ collaborative debugging of electronic textile designs. In Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference on Creativity and Fabrication in Education (pp. 82–85). New York, NY: ACM.
19.
HannayJ. E.ArisholmE.EngvikH.SjøbergD. I. (2010) Effects of personality on pair programming. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering36(1): 61–80.
20.
HannayJ. E.DybåT.ArisholmE.SjøbergD. I. (2009) The effectiveness of pair programming: A meta-analysis. Information and Software Technology51(7): 1110–1122.
21.
HwangW. Y.WuS. Y. (2014) A case study of collaboration with multi-robots and its effect on children's interaction. Interactive Learning Environments22(4): 429–443.
22.
JonassenD. H.HungW. (2006) Learning to troubleshoot: A new theory-based design architecture. Educational Psychology Review18(1): 77–114.
23.
KarauS. J.WilliamsK. D. (1994) Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology65(4): 681–706.
24.
KesterL.KirschnerP. A.Van MerriënboerJ. J. G. (2006) Just-in-time information presentation: Improving learning a troubleshooting skill. Contemporary Educational Psychology31: 167–185.
25.
KirschnerF.PaasF.KirschnerP. A. (2009) Individual and group-based learning from complex cognitive tasks: Effects on retention and transfer efficiency. Computers in Human Behavior25(2): 306–314.
26.
LabeB. I. (2015) Student teachers’ self-appraised problem-solving and willingness to engage in troubleshooting activities. SAGE Open5(3): 1–10.
27.
LaughlinP. R.HatchE. C.SilverJ. S.BohL. (2006) Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: Effects of group size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology90: 644–651.
28.
LeiteI.McCoyM.LohaniM.UllmanD.SalomonsN.StokesC.SusanR.ScassellatiB. (2017) Narratives with robots: The impact of interaction context and individual differences on story recall and emotional understanding. Frontiers in Robotics and AI4: 1–14.
29.
LindhJ.HolgerssonT. (2007) Does LEGO training stimulate pupils’ ability to solve logical problems?Computers & Education49(4): 1097–1111.
30.
LiuE. Z. F.LinC. H.ChangC. S. (2010) Student satisfaction and self-efficacy in a cooperative robotics course. Social Behavior and Personality38(8): 1135–1146.
31.
LittsB. K.KafaiY. B.LuiD. A.WalkerJ. T.WidmanS. A. (2017) Stitching codeable circuits: High school students’ learning about circuitry and coding with electronic textiles. Journal of Science Education and Technology26(5): 494–507.
32.
LouY.AbramiP. C.d’ApolloniaS. (2001) Small group and individual learning with technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research71(3): 449–521.
33.
LuiK. M.ChanK. C. (2006) Pair programming productivity: Novice–novice vs. expert–expert. International Journal of Human-computer Studies64(9): 915–925.
34.
LyeS. Y.KohJ. H. L. (2014) Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12?Computers in Human Behavior41: 51–61.
35.
Massachusetts Department of Education. (2006). Massachusetts science and technology/engineering curriculum framework. Retrieved from Massachusetts Department of Education http://www.doe.mass.edu/frameworks/scitech/1006.pdf.
36.
McLurkinJ.RykowskiJ.JohnM.KasemanQ.LynchA. J. (2013) Using multi-robot systems for engineering education: Teaching and outreach with large numbers of an advanced, low-cost robot. IEEE Transactions on Education56(1): 24–33.
37.
MillsK. A.ChandraV.ParkJ. Y. (2013) The architecture of children’s use of language and tools when problem solving collaboratively with robotics. The Australian Educational Researcher40(3): 315–337.
MosleyP.KlineR. (2006) Engaging students: A framework using LEGO® robotics to teach problem solving. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal24(1): 39–45.
40.
MubinO.StevensC. J.ShahidS.Al MahmudA.DongJ. (2013) A review of the applicability of robots in education. Technology for Education and Learning1: 1–7.
41.
NugentG.BarkerB.GrandgenettN.AdamchukV. I. (2010) Impact of robotics and geospatial technology interventions on youth STEM learning and attitudes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education42(4): 391–408.
42.
PaasF. (1992) Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology84: 429–434.
43.
PaasF.TuovinenJ. E.TabbersH.Van GervenP. W. (2003) Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist38(1): 63–71.
44.
Panadero, C. F., Román, J. V., & Kloos, C. D. (2010). Impact of learning experiences using LEGO Mindstorms® in engineering courses. In Education Engineering (EDUCON), 2010 (pp. 503–512). Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
45.
PuurtinenM.MappesT. (2009) Between-group competition and human cooperation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences276(1655): 355–360.
46.
QuZ.WuX. (2006) A new curriculum on planning and cooperative control of autonomous mobile robots. International Journal of Engineering Education22(4): 804–814.
47.
RitalaP.GolnamA.WegmannA. (2014) Coopetition-based business models: The case of Amazon. com. Industrial Marketing Management43(2): 236–249.
48.
SallehN.MendesE.GrundyJ. (2011) Empirical studies of pair programming for CS/SE teaching in higher education: A Systematic literature review. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering37(4): 509–525.
49.
SfetsosP.StamelosI.AngelisL.DeligiannisI. (2009) An experimental investigation of personality types impact on pair effectiveness in pair programming. Empirical Software Engineering14(2): 187–226.
50.
SullivanF. R. (2008) Robotics and science literacy: Thinking skills, science process skills and systems understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching45(3): 373–394.
51.
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 State University, Boise, ID.
52.
Tofel-GrehlC.FieldsD.SearleK.Maahs-FladungC.FeldonD.GuG.SunC. (2017) Electrifying engagement in middle school science class: Improving student interest through e-textiles. Journal of Science Education and Technology26(4): 406–417.
53.
TomaselloM.KrugerA. C.RatnerH. H. (1993) Cultural learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences16(3): 495–552.
54.
Van De BogartK. L.Dounas-FrazerD. R.LewandowskiH. J.StetzerM. R. (2017) Investigating the role of socially mediated metacognition during collaborative troubleshooting of electric circuits. Physical Review Physics Education Research13(2): 1–19.
55.
Van GogT.PaasF.Van MerriënboerJ. J. (2005) Uncovering expertise-related differences in troubleshooting performance: Combining eye movement and concurrent verbal protocol data. Applied Cognitive Psychology19(2): 205–221.
56.
Van GogT.PaasF.Van MerriënboerJ. J. (2006) Effects of process-oriented worked examples on troubleshooting transfer performance. Learning and Instruction16(2): 154–164.
57.
Van GogT.PaasF.Van MerriënboerJ. J. (2008) Effects of studying sequences of process-oriented and product-oriented worked examples on troubleshooting transfer efficiency. Learning and Instruction18(3): 211–222.
58.
WainerJ.FerrariE.DautenhahnK.RobinsB. (2010) The effectiveness of using a robotics class to foster collaboration among groups of children with autism in an exploratory study. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing14(5): 445–455.
59.
Wang, J., & Zhong, B. (2018). A preliminary study on switching roles in pair learning of robotics education. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Ubi-Media Computing and Workshops (pp. 191–194).
60.
WebbD. C. (2010) Troubleshooting assessment: An authentic problem solving activity for it education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences9: 903–907.
61.
WilsonM. (2002) Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review9(4): 625–636.
62.
XiaL.ZhongB. (2018) A systematic review on teaching and learning robotics content knowledge in K-12. Computers & Education127: 267–282.
63.
YerushalmiE. (2014) Problem solving vs. troubleshooting tasks: The case of sixth-grade students studying simple electric circuits. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education12(6): 1341–1366.
64.
YerushalmiE.PuterkovskyM.BagnoE. (2013) Knowledge integration while interacting with an online troubleshooting activity. Journal of Science Education and Technology22(4): 463–474.
65.
YuenT. T.BoeckingM.TigerE. P.GomezA.GuillenA.ArreguinA.StoneJ. (2014) Group tasks, activities, dynamics, and interactions in collaborative robotics projects with elementary and middle school children. Journal of STEM Education: Innovations and Research15(1): 39–46.
66.
ZhongB.WangQ.ChenJ. (2016) The impact of social factors on pair programming in a primary school. Computers in Human Behavior64: 423–431.
67.
ZhongB.WangQ.ChenJ.LiY. (2017) Investigating the period of switching roles in pair programming in a primary school. Journal of Educational Technology & Society20(3): 220–233.
68.
ZhongB.WangY. (2018) Exploration of the pair learning in robotics education (in Chinese). Modern Distance Education Research3: 66–74. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1009-5195.2018.03.008.
