Effects of new coopetition designs on learning performance in robotics education.

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 t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Journal of Computer Assisted Learning Vol. 38; no. 1; pp. 223 - 237
Autores principales: Zhong, Baichang, Xia, Liying
Formato: pictorial research tables/charts Journal Article
Publicado: Wiley-Blackwell Feb2022
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=154497195&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 154497195
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        02664909
        6M1
      jtl: Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
      issn: 02664909
      maglogo: Y
    pubinfo:
      dt: Feb2022
      vid: 38
      iid: 1
      pid: 480
      pub: Wiley-Blackwell
      place: Malden, Massachusetts
    artinfo:
      ui:
        154497195
        152011338
        154497195
        154497195
        10.1111/jcal.12606
        154497195
      ppf: 223
      ppct: 14
      formats:
      tig:
        atl: Effects of new coopetition designs on learning performance in robotics education.
      aug:
        au:
          Zhong, Baichang
          Xia, Liying
        affil: School of Information Technology in Education, South China Normal University, Guangzhou, China
      sug:
        subj:
          Robotics Education
          Academic Performance
          Collaboration
          Learning Methods
          Schools, Elementary
          Pilot Studies
          Reward Classification
          Social Comparison
          Professional Knowledge
          Outcome Assessment
          Models, Educational
          Conceptual Framework
          Internal Consistency
          Coefficient alpha
          Surveys
          Competitive Behavior
          Cooperative Behavior
          Quantitative Studies
          T-Tests
          Convenience Sample
          Human
          Male
          Female
          Child
          Questionnaires
          Summated Rating Scaling
          Post Hoc Analysis
          Child: 6-12 years
          Male
          Female
      ab: 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.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        pictorial
        research
        tables/charts
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N