Grouping matters in computational robotic activities

Taylor, Kellie; Baek, Youngkyun

doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.12.010

Cited by 43 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hence, the development of the corresponding collaboration skills as well as domain learning are needs that are addressed by CSCL scripts. Tabak (2004) suggests a framework for the distribution of different scaffolds for one need or for different needs. She describes the combination of different scaffolds targeting different needs as differentiated scaffolding, while different scaffolds targeting the same need can also be combined deploying their maximal strengths in the form of synergistic scaffolding.…”

Section: Effectiveness Of Combining Scaffolds For Different Types Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…She describes the combination of different scaffolds targeting different needs as differentiated scaffolding, while different scaffolds targeting the same need can also be combined deploying their maximal strengths in the form of synergistic scaffolding. Applying Tabak's (2004) arguments to scaffolding different collaborative activities with CSCL scripts, differentiated and synergistic scaffolding could be relevant. For differentiated scaffolding, the proximate needs that are scaffolded using Liu et al's (2015) framework are the specific corresponding collaboration skills.…”

Section: Effectiveness Of Combining Scaffolds For Different Types Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, the effects of a CSCL script combining scaffolds for different collaborative activities should be as high as when the scaffolds were individually applied. Also, these scaffolds should not negatively interfere with each other (Tabak 2004).…”

Section: Effectiveness Of Combining Scaffolds For Different Types Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, scaffolding the different collaborative activities also addresses one joint need, namely domain learning. For domain learning, combining different scaffolds would ideally lead to synergistic scaffolding, as the scaffolds mutually increase each other's effectiveness (Tabak 2004). In the case of synergistic scaffolding, the effect of combined scaffolds on domain learning would thus exceed the effects of CSCL scripts scaffolding each collaborative activity individually.…”

Section: Effectiveness Of Combining Scaffolds For Different Types Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In light of this, both the individual as well as the combined scaffolding of collaborative activities could be beneficial for learning. On the one hand, learners might benefit from combined scripting for different collaborative activities, as several skills necessary for successful collaboration are addressed simultaneously (Tabak 2004). On the other hand, learners might need to deliberately practice a single collaborative activity, particularly when the intervention period is short.…”

Section: Effectiveness Of Combining Scaffolds For Different Types Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Good for learning, bad for motivation? A meta-analysis on the effects of computer-supported collaboration scripts

Radkowitsch

Vogel

Fischer

2020

Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning has been shown to greatly enhance learning, but is often criticized for hindering learners' agency and thus undermining learners' motivation. Beyond that, what makes some CSCL scripts particularly effective for learning is still a conundrum. This meta-analysis synthesizes the results of 53 primary studies that experimentally compared the effect of learning with a CSCL script to unguided collaborative learning on at least one of the variables motivation, domain learning, and collaboration skills. Overall, 5616 learners enrolled in K-12, higher education, or professional development participated in the included studies. The results of a random-effects meta-analysis show that learning with CSCL scripts leads to a nonsignificant positive effect on motivation (Hedges' g = 0.13), a small positive effect (Hedges' g = 0.24) on domain learning and a medium positive effect (Hedges' g = 0.72) on collaboration skills. Additionally, the meta-analysis shows how scaffolding single particular collaborative activities and scaffolding a combination of collaborative activities affects the effectiveness of CSCL scripts and that synergistic or differentiated scaffolding is hard to achieve. This meta-analysis offers the first counterevidence against the widespread criticism that CSCL scripts have negative motivational effects. Furthermore, the findings can be taken as evidence for the robustness of the positive effects on domain learning and collaboration skills.

show abstract

Section: Effectiveness Of Combining Scaffolds For Different Types Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Effectiveness Of Combining Scaffolds For Different Types Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Effectiveness Of Combining Scaffolds For Different Types Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Effectiveness Of Combining Scaffolds For Different Types Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Effectiveness Of Combining Scaffolds For Different Types Of mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Good for learning, bad for motivation? A meta-analysis on the effects of computer-supported collaboration scripts

Radkowitsch

Vogel

Fischer

2020

Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The Effect of Commercially Available Educational Robotics: A Systematic Review

Pedersen

Larsen

Nielsen

2019

Robotics in Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Educational institutions planning to invest in Educational Robotics are faced with a wide selection of products. Yet, we have not been able to find any review studies on the effect of these products, to guide the institutions to get the most out of their investments. For this review, 29 Educational Robotics products were therefore selected, and eight major databases were searched for effect studies involving these. The search yielded 301 results, of which 17 were selected for synthesizing. The studies and their respective findings are discussed in the review. Unfortunately, there were not enough studies to compare the effect of the products and more research is therefore needed. In addition, the studies methodologies and design have been analyzed, and a series of recommendations for how future experimental/quasi-experimental studies within the field can be design and conducted, have been established.

show abstract