Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Exploring the Non-significant Difference on Students’ Cognitive Load Imposed by Robotics Tasks in Pair Learning

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Currently, the cognitive load imposed by tasks with different complexity during collaborative learning or pair learning has not been well studied. This study examined the effect of three types of tasks with different complexity on students’ cognitive load during pair learning. We randomly selected a total of 76 pupils to participate in a one-semester robotics course for the experiment. The results showed that the difference in students’ cognitive load imposed by pair learning and robotics tasks with different complexity was not significant. However, it is complicated to explain the results. From one side of the coin, pair learning may be a key factor. The more complex the task is, the more possible that an individuals would collaborate with partners to promote the equal allocation of intrinsic cognitive load. In contrast, the simple tasks would cause free-riding and thus impede the equal allocation of cognitive load. From another side, the essence of germane cognitive load might play an important role too, since students’ schemas were not sufficiently automated when they encountered the easy tasks at the early learning stage, but automated to some extent when they complete complex tasks during the later learning period. Implications for practitioners are also discussed in this study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Xia L, Zhong B (2018) A systematic review on teaching and learning robotics content knowledge in K-12. Comput Educ 127:267–282

    Google Scholar 

  2. Benitti FBV (2012) Exploring the educational potential of robotics in schools: a systematic review. Comput Educ 58(3):978–988

    Google Scholar 

  3. Sisman B, Kucuk S, Yaman Y (2020) The effects of robotics training on children’s spatial ability and attitude toward STEM. Int J Soc Robot. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-020-00646-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Cheng CC, Huang PL, Huang KH (2013) Cooperative learning in LEGO robotics projects: exploring the impacts of group formation on interaction and achievement. J Netw 8(7):1529–1535

    Google Scholar 

  5. Jung S (2013) Experiences in developing an experimental robotics course program for undergraduate education. IEEE Trans Educ 56(1):129–136

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hwang WY, Wu SY (2014) A case study of collaboration with multi-robots and its effect on children’s interaction. Interact Learn Environ 22(4):429–443

    Google Scholar 

  7. Jordan ME, JrRR McDaniel (2014) Managing uncertainty during collaborative problem solving in elementary school teams: the role of peer influence in robotics engineering activity. J Learn Sci 23(4):490–536

    Google Scholar 

  8. Liu EZF, Lin CH, Chang CS (2010) Student satisfaction and self-efficacy in a cooperative robotics course. Soc Behav Personal 38(8):1135–1146

    Google Scholar 

  9. Menekse M, Higashi R, Schunn CD, Baehr E (2017) The role of robotics teams’ collaboration quality on team performance in a robotics tournament. J Eng Educ 106(4):564–584

    Google Scholar 

  10. Chandra S, Alves-Oliveira P, Lemaignan S, Sequeira P, Paiva A, Dillenbourg P (2016) Children's peer assessment and self-disclosure in the presence of an educational robot. In: Proceedings of the 25th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN), pp 539–544. https://doi.org/10.1109/ROMAN.2016.7745170

  11. Kanda T, Hirano T, Eaton D, Ishiguro H (2004) Interactive robots as social partners and peer tutors for children: a field trial. Hum Comput Interact 19(1):61–84

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chen H, Park HW, Breazeal C (2020) Teaching and learning with children: impact of reciprocal peer learning with a social robot on children’s learning and emotive engagement. Comput Educ 150:103836

    Google Scholar 

  13. Correll N, Rus D (2010) Peer-to-peer learning in robotics education: lessons from a challenge project class. Comput Educ J 1(3):60–66

    Google Scholar 

  14. Williams LA, Kessler RR (2000) All I really need to know about pair programming I learned in kindergarten. Commun ACM 43(5):108–114

    Google Scholar 

  15. Zhong B, Li T (2020) Can pair learning improve students’ troubleshooting performance in robotics education? J Educ Comput Res 58(1):220–248

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kirschner F, Paas F, Kirschner PA (2009) A cognitive load approach to collaborative learning: united brains for complex tasks. Educ Psychol Rev 21:31–42

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kirschner F, Paas F, Kirschner PA (2009) Effects of individual and group-based learning from complex cognitive tasks on efficiency of retention and transfer performance. Comput Hum Behav 25:306–314

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kirschner F, Paas F, Kirschner PA, Janssen J (2011) Differential effects of problem-solving demands on individual and collaborative learning outcomes. Learn Instr 21(4):587–599

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kirschner F, Paas F, Kirschner PA (2011) Task complexity as a driver for collaborative learning efficiency: the collective working-memory effect. Appl Cogn Psychol 25(4):615–624

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ayres P (2006) Using subjective measures to detect variations of intrinsic cognitive load within problems. Learn Instr 16(5):389–400

    Google Scholar 

  21. Haji FA, Rojas D, Childs R, de Ribaupierre S, Dubrowski A (2015) Measuring cognitive load: performance, mental effort and simulation task complexity. Med Educ 49(8):815–827

    Google Scholar 

  22. Sweller J (2010) Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educ Psychol Rev 22(2):123–138

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kirschner PA, Sweller J, Kirschner F, Zambroano RJ (2018) From cognitive load theory to collaborative cognitive load theory. Int J Comput Supp Coll 13(2):213–233

    Google Scholar 

  24. Clark RC, Nguyen F, Sweller J (2005) Efficiency in learning: evidence-based guidelines to manage cognitive load. Pfeiffer, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  25. Leppink J, Paas F, van Gog T, van der Vleuten CPM, van Merriënboer JJG (2014) Effects of pairs of problems and examples on task performance and different types of cognitive load. Learn Instr 30:32–42

    Google Scholar 

  26. Korbach A, Brünken R, Park B (2018) Differentiating different types of cognitive load: a comparison of different measures. Educ Psychol Rev 30(2):503–529

    Google Scholar 

  27. Paas F, Tuovinen JE, Tabbers H, Van Gerven PW (2003) Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educ Psychol 38(1):63–71

    Google Scholar 

  28. Paas FG (1992) Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: a cognitive-load approach. J Educ Psychol 84(4):429–434

    Google Scholar 

  29. Paas FG, Van Merriënboer JJ, Adam JJ (1994) Measurement of cognitive load in instructional research. Percept Mot Skills 79(1):419–430

    Google Scholar 

  30. Retnowati E, Ayres P, Sweller J (2018) Collaborative learning effects when students have complete or incomplete knowledge. Appl Cogn Psychol 32(6):681–692

    Google Scholar 

  31. Hannay JE, Arisholm E, Engvik H, Sjøberg DI (2010) Effects of personality on pair programming. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 36(1):61–80

    Google Scholar 

  32. van Gog T, Paas F, van Merriënboer JJG (2006) Effects of process-oriented worked examples on troubleshooting transfer performance. Learn Instr 16(2):154–164

    Google Scholar 

  33. Campbell DJ (1988) Task complexity: a review and analysis. Acad Manag Rev 13(1):40–52

    Google Scholar 

  34. Zhong B, Wang Q, Chen J, Li Y (2016) An exploration of three-dimensional integrated assessment for computational thinking. J Educ Comput Res 53(4):562–590

    Google Scholar 

  35. Barak M, Assal M (2018) Robotics and STEM learning: Students’ achievements in assignments according to the P3 Task Taxonomy—practice, problem solving, and projects. Int J Technol Des Ed 28(1):121–144

    Google Scholar 

  36. Puurtinen M, Mappes T (2009) Between-group competition and human cooperation. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 276(1655):355–360

    Google Scholar 

  37. McDowell C, Werner L, Bullock H, Fernald J (2006) Pair programming improves student retention, confidence, and program quality. Commun ACM 49(8):90–95

    Google Scholar 

  38. Shanks D, Brydges R, Den Brok W, Nair P, Hatala R (2013) Are two heads better than one? Comparing dyad and self-regulated learning in simulation training. Med Educ 47(12):1215–1222

    Google Scholar 

  39. Zhong B, Wang Q, Chen J, Li Y (2017) Investigating the period of switching roles in pair programming in a primary school. Educ Technol Soc 20(3):211–224

    Google Scholar 

  40. Di Lieto MC, Inguaggiato E, Castro E, Cecchi F, Cioni G, Dell’Omo M, Laschi C, Pecini C, Santerini G, Sgandurra G, Dario P (2017) Educational robotics intervention on executive functions in preschool children: a pilot study. Comput Hum Behav 71:16–23

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hinsz VB, Tindale RS, Vollrath DA (1997) The emerging conceptualization of groups as information processors. Psychol Bull 121:43–64

    Google Scholar 

  42. Tolsgaard MG, Kulasegaram KM, Ringsted CV (2016) Collaborative learning of clinical skills in health professions education: the why, how, when and for whom. Med Educ 50(1):69–78

    Google Scholar 

  43. Janssen J, Kirschner F, Erkens G, Kirschner PA, Paas F (2010) Making the black box of collaborative learning transparent: combining process-oriented and cognitive lead approaches. Educ Psychol Rev 22(2):139–154

    Google Scholar 

  44. Sevenhuysen S, Farlie MK, Keating JL, Haines TP, Molloy E (2015) Physiotherapy students and clinical educators perceive several ways in which incorporating peer-assisted learning could improve clinical placements: a qualitative study. J Physiother 61(2):87–92

    Google Scholar 

  45. Bodemer D, Dehler J (2011) Group awareness in CSCL environments. Comput Hum Behav 27(3):1043–1045

    Google Scholar 

  46. Gutwin C, Greenberg S (2004) The importance of awareness for team cognition in distributed collaboration. In: Salas E, Fiore SM (eds) Team cognition: understanding the factors that drive process and performance. APA Press, Washington, DC, pp 177–201

    Google Scholar 

  47. Zhong B, Zheng J, Zhan Z (2020) An exploration of combining virtual and physical robots in robotics education. Interact Learn Environ. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1786409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Katira N, Williams L, Wiebe E, Miller C, Balik S, Gehringer E (2004) On understanding compatibility of student pair programmers. ACM SIGCSE Bull 36(1):7e11

    Google Scholar 

  49. Zhong B, Wang Q, Chen J (2016) The impact of social factors on pair programming in a primary school. Comput Hum Behav 64:423–431

    Google Scholar 

  50. Fontenot M, Canales K, Quicksall AN (2014) Taking care of the team in a first-year design experience course. In: Proceedings of the 2014 conference of frontiers in education. IEEE, New York, pp 1–5

  51. Okita SY (2014) The relative merits of transparency: investigating situations that support the use of robotics in developing student learning adaptability across virtual and physical computing platforms. Brit J Educ Technol 45(5):844–862

    Google Scholar 

  52. Bianco AS (2014) Starting and teaching: basic robotics in the classroom: modern, engaging engineering in technology education. Technol Eng Teach 73(7):32–38

    Google Scholar 

  53. Janssen J, Erkens G, Kirschner PA (2011) Group awareness tools: it’s what you do with it that matters. Comput Hum Behav 27(3):1046–1058

    Google Scholar 

  54. Jermann P, Dillenbourg P (2008) Group mirrors to support interaction regulation in collaborative problem solving. Comput Educ 51(1):279–296

    Google Scholar 

  55. Sweller J (2004) Instructional design consequences of an analogy between evolution by natural selection and human cognitive architecture. Instr Sci 32:9–31

    Google Scholar 

  56. Sweller J, Sweller S (2006) Natural information processing systems. Evol Psychol 4:434–458

    Google Scholar 

  57. Su H, Yang C, Ferrigno G, De Momi E (2019) Improved human–robot collaborative control of redundant robot for teleoperated minimally invasive surgery. IEEE Robot Autom Lett 4(2):1447–1453

    Google Scholar 

  58. Su H, Hu Y, Karimi HR, Knoll A, Momi ED (2020) Improved recurrent neural network-based manipulator control with remote center of motion constraints: experimental results. Neural Netw 131:291–299

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Liying Xia, Qiuju Si, and Zehui Zhan for checking this manuscript, and deeply grateful to the anonymous reviewers and editors for their constructive and insightful feedback on this manuscript.

Funding

This study is funded 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 No. BCA190088).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information Technology in Education, South China Normal University, No. 55, West of Zhongshan Avenue, P.O. Box 510631, Guangzhou, China

    Baichang Zhong

  2. Jinzhou No. 1 Senior High School, Jinzhou, Liaoning, China

    Jiayu Wang

Authors
  1. Baichang Zhong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jiayu Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Baichang Zhong.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhong, B., Wang, J. Exploring the Non-significant Difference on Students’ Cognitive Load Imposed by Robotics Tasks in Pair Learning. Int J of Soc Robotics 14, 3–13 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00764-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-021-00764-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation