| Sumario: | Background: Although some researchers have applied both cooperation and competition in the practice of robotics education, most of these practices were not systematic, and there was no integration design for intra‐group cooperation and inter‐group competition. Objectives: The study aims to examine the effects of different coopetition designs on students' intragroup cooperation and intergroup competition. Methods: A two‐stage study was conducted in two elementary schools. In the pilot study, two coopetition designs were developed by combining rewarded and unrewarded competition. In the follow‐up study, three coopetition designs (i.e., zero‐sum with real‐time reward, zero‐sum with delayed reward, and social‐comparison) were examined. Results and Conclusions: The study showed that both social‐comparison coopetition and zero‐sum real‐time reward coopetition can be more effective than zero‐sum delayed reward coopetition in teaching knowledge and skills in robotics education. Social comparison coopetition turned out to have a larger effect on affective outcome than the zero‐sum delayed reward coopetition. Implications: Social comparison coopetition seems to be a more advantages method for both cognitive and affective learning. However, more research is needed to confirm the difference in effectiveness between the three models of coopetition. Lay Description: What is already known about this topic: Pair learning as a form of cooperation learning is helpful to improve students' confidence, productivity, achievement and the quality of cooperation.How to combine cooperation and competition is a key issue. What this paper adds: New coopetition models were designed by combining rewarded and unrewarded competition with pair learning.Social‐comparison coopetition based on pair learning shows great potential to promote intragroup cooperation and intergroup competition.Zero‐sum coopetition with real‐time reward was superior but not overwhelming to the zero‐sum coopetition with delayed reward. Implications for practice and/or policy: Social‐comparison coopetition and zero‐sum with real‐time reward coopetition can be effective teaching methods for robotics learning.Both social‐comparison coopetition and zero‐sum real‐time reward coopetition may be effective methods for teaching knowledge and skills in robotics education.For affective outcome, social comparison coopetition seems to be slightly more effective than zero‐sum delayed reward coopetition.
|
|---|