Can Pair Learning Improve Students’ Troubleshooting Performance in Robotics Education?

Abstract

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.

Keywords

robotics education troubleshooting pair learning individual learning

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alimisis

(2013) Educational robotics: Open questions and new challenges. Themes in Science and Technology Education 6(1): 63–71.

Avsec

Rihtarsic

Kocijancic

(2016) The impact of robotics-enhanced approach on students' satisfaction in open learning environment. International Journal of Engineering Education 32(2): 804–817.

Ayres

(2006) Using subjective measures to detect variations of intrinsic load within problems. Learning and Instruction 16: 389–400.

Barak

Zadok

(2009) Robotics projects and learning concepts in science, technology and problem solving. International Journal of Technology & Design Education 19(3): 289–307.

Balijepally

Mahapatra

Nerur

Price

K. H.

(2009) Are two heads better than one for software development? The productivity paradox of pair programming. MIS Quarterly 33(1): 91–118.

Benitti

F. B. V.

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

Bers

M. U.

Flannery

Kazakoff

E. R.

Sullivan

(2014) Computational thinking and tinkering: Exploration of an early childhood robotics curriculum. Computers and Education 72: 145–157.

Bers

M. U.

Portsmore

(2005) Teaching partnerships: Early childhood and engineering students teaching math and science through robotics. Journal of Science Education and Technology 14(1): 59–73.

Bianco

A. S.

(2014) Starting and teaching basic robotics in the classroom: Modern, engaging engineering in technology education. Technology & Engineering Teacher 73: 32–38.

10.

Bishop-Clark

Courte

Howard

E. V.

(2006) Programming in pairs with Alice to improve confidence, enjoyment, and achievement. Journal of Educational Computing Research 34(2): 213–228.

11.

Bouncken

R. B.

Kraus

(2013) Innovation in knowledge-intensive industries: The double-edged sword of coopetition. Journal of Business Research 66(10): 2060–2070.

12.

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. JNW 8(7): 1529–1535.

13.

Choi

K. S.

(2015) A Comparative analysis of different gender pair combinations in pair programming. Behaviour & Information Technology 34(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.

Denis

Hubert

(2001) Collaborative learning in an educational robotics environment. Computers in Human Behavior 17(5): 465–480.

16.

Di Lieto

M. C.

Inguaggiato

Castro

Cecchi

Cioni

Dell’Omo

Laschi

Pecini

Santerini

Sgandurra

Dario

(2017) Educational robotics intervention on executive functions in preschool children: A pilot study. Computers in Human Behavior 71: 16–23.

17.

Dounas-Frazer

D. R.

Lewandowski

H. J.

(2017) Electronics lab instructors’ approaches to troubleshooting instruction. Physical Review Physics Education Research 113(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.

Hannay

J. E.

Arisholm

Engvik

Sjøberg

D. I.

(2010) Effects of personality on pair programming. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 36(1): 61–80.

20.

Hannay

J. E.

Dybå

Arisholm

Sjøberg

D. I.

(2009) The effectiveness of pair programming: A meta-analysis. Information and Software Technology 51(7): 1110–1122.

21.

Hwang

W. Y.

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.

22.

Jonassen

D. H.

Hung

(2006) Learning to troubleshoot: A new theory-based design architecture. Educational Psychology Review 18(1): 77–114.

23.

Karau

S. J.

Williams

K. D.

(1994) Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 65(4): 681–706.

24.

Kester

Kirschner

P. A.

Van Merriënboer

J. J. G.

(2006) Just-in-time information presentation: Improving learning a troubleshooting skill. Contemporary Educational Psychology 31: 167–185.

25.

Kirschner

Paas

Kirschner

P. A.

(2009) Individual and group-based learning from complex cognitive tasks: Effects on retention and transfer efficiency. Computers in Human Behavior 25(2): 306–314.

26.

Labe

B. I.

(2015) Student teachers’ self-appraised problem-solving and willingness to engage in troubleshooting activities. SAGE Open 5(3): 1–10.

27.

Laughlin

P. R.

Hatch

E. C.

Silver

J. S.

Boh

(2006) Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: Effects of group size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90: 644–651.

28.

Leite

McCoy

Lohani

Ullman

Salomons

Stokes

Susan

Scassellati

(2017) Narratives with robots: The impact of interaction context and individual differences on story recall and emotional understanding. Frontiers in Robotics and AI 4: 1–14.

29.

Lindh

Holgersson

(2007) Does LEGO training stimulate pupils’ ability to solve logical problems? Computers & Education 49(4): 1097–1111.

30.

Liu

E. Z. F.

Lin

C. H.

Chang

C. S.

(2010) Student satisfaction and self-efficacy in a cooperative robotics course. Social Behavior and Personality 38(8): 1135–1146.

31.

Litts

B. K.

Kafai

Y. B.

Lui

D. A.

Walker

J. T.

Widman

S. A.

(2017) Stitching codeable circuits: High school students’ learning about circuitry and coding with electronic textiles. Journal of Science Education and Technology 26(5): 494–507.

32.

Lou

Abrami

P. C.

d’Apollonia

(2001) Small group and individual learning with technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 71(3): 449–521.

33.

Lui

K. M.

Chan

K. C.

(2006) Pair programming productivity: Novice–novice vs. expert–expert. International Journal of Human-computer Studies 64(9): 915–925.

34.

Lye

S. Y.

Koh

J. H. L.

(2014) Review on teaching and learning of computational thinking through programming: What is next for K-12? Computers in Human Behavior 41: 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.

McLurkin

Rykowski

John

Kaseman

Lynch

A. J.

(2013) Using multi-robot systems for engineering education: Teaching and outreach with large numbers of an advanced, low-cost robot. IEEE Transactions on Education 56(1): 24–33.

37.

Mills

K. A.

Chandra

Park

J. Y.

(2013) The architecture of children’s use of language and tools when problem solving collaboratively with robotics. The Australian Educational Researcher 40(3): 315–337.

38.

Mitnik

Recabarren

Nussbaum

Soto

(2009) Collaborative robotic instruction: A graph teaching experience. Computers & Education 53(2): 330–342.

39.

Mosley

Kline

(2006) Engaging students: A framework using LEGO® robotics to teach problem solving. Information Technology, Learning, and Performance Journal 24(1): 39–45.

40.

Mubin

Stevens

C. J.

Shahid

Al Mahmud

Dong

(2013) A review of the applicability of robots in education. Technology for Education and Learning 1: 1–7.

41.

Nugent

Barker

Grandgenett

Adamchuk

V. I.

(2010) Impact of robotics and geospatial technology interventions on youth STEM learning and attitudes. Journal of Research on Technology in Education 42(4): 391–408.

42.

Paas

(1992) Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology 84: 429–434.

43.

Paas

Tuovinen

J. E.

Tabbers

Van Gerven

P. W.

(2003) Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist 38(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.

Puurtinen

Mappes

(2009) Between-group competition and human cooperation. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 276(1655): 355–360.

46.

(2006) A new curriculum on planning and cooperative control of autonomous mobile robots. International Journal of Engineering Education 22(4): 804–814.

47.

Ritala

Golnam

Wegmann

(2014) Coopetition-based business models: The case of Amazon. com. Industrial Marketing Management 43(2): 236–249.

48.

Salleh

Mendes

Grundy

(2011) Empirical studies of pair programming for CS/SE teaching in higher education: A Systematic literature review. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 37(4): 509–525.

49.

Sfetsos

Stamelos

Angelis

Deligiannis

(2009) An experimental investigation of personality types impact on pair effectiveness in pair programming. Empirical Software Engineering 14(2): 187–226.

50.

Sullivan

F. R.

(2008) Robotics and science literacy: Thinking skills, science process skills and systems understanding. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 45(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-Grehl

Fields

Searle

Maahs-Fladung

Feldon

Sun

(2017) Electrifying engagement in middle school science class: Improving student interest through e-textiles. Journal of Science Education and Technology 26(4): 406–417.

53.

Tomasello

Kruger

A. C.

Ratner

H. H.

(1993) Cultural learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16(3): 495–552.

54.

Van De Bogart

K. L.

Dounas-Frazer

D. R.

Lewandowski

H. J.

Stetzer

M. R.

(2017) Investigating the role of socially mediated metacognition during collaborative troubleshooting of electric circuits. Physical Review Physics Education Research 13(2): 1–19.

55.

Van Gog

Paas

Van Merriënboer

J. J.

(2005) Uncovering expertise-related differences in troubleshooting performance: Combining eye movement and concurrent verbal protocol data. Applied Cognitive Psychology 19(2): 205–221.

56.

Van Gog

Paas

Van Merriënboer

J. J.

(2006) Effects of process-oriented worked examples on troubleshooting transfer performance. Learning and Instruction 16(2): 154–164.

57.

Van Gog

Paas

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.

58.

Wainer

Ferrari

Dautenhahn

Robins

(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.

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.

Webb

D. C.

(2010) Troubleshooting assessment: An authentic problem solving activity for it education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 9: 903–907.

61.

Wilson

(2002) Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 9(4): 625–636.

62.

Xia

Zhong

(2018) A systematic review on teaching and learning robotics content knowledge in K-12. Computers & Education 127: 267–282.

63.

Yerushalmi

(2014) Problem solving vs. troubleshooting tasks: The case of sixth-grade students studying simple electric circuits. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 12(6): 1341–1366.

64.

Yerushalmi

Puterkovsky

Bagno

(2013) Knowledge integration while interacting with an online troubleshooting activity. Journal of Science Education and Technology 22(4): 463–474.

65.

Yuen

T. T.

Boecking

Tiger

E. P.

Gomez

Guillen

Arreguin

Stone

(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): 39–46.

66.

Zhong

Wang

Chen

(2016) The impact of social factors on pair programming in a primary school. Computers in Human Behavior 64: 423–431.

67.

Zhong

Wang

Chen

(2017) Investigating the period of switching roles in pair programming in a primary school. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 20(3): 220–233.

68.

Zhong

Wang

(2018) Exploration of the pair learning in robotics education (in Chinese). Modern Distance Education Research 3: 66–74. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1009-5195.2018.03.008.