The relative merits of transparency: Investigating situations that support the use of robotics in developing student learning adaptability across virtual and physical computing platforms

This study examined whether developing earlier forms of knowledge in specific learning environments prepares students better for future learning when they are placed in an unfamiliar learning environment. Forty-one students in the fifth and sixth grades learned to program robot movements using abstract concepts of speed, distance and direction. Students in high-transparency environments learned visual programming to control robots (eg, organizing visual icons), and students in low-transparency environments learned syntactic programming to control robots (eg, text-based coding). Both groups received feedback and models of solutions during the learning phase. The assessment midway showed students in both conditions learned equally well when solving problems using familiar materials. However, a difference emerged when students were asked to solve new problems, using unfamiliar materials. The low-transparency group was more successful in adapting and repurposing their knowledge to solve novel problems that required the use of unfamiliar high-transparency materials. Students in the high-transparency group were less successful in adapting their knowledge when solving new problems using unfamiliar low-transparency materials. Both groups then proceeded to learn in the opposing transparency environments. The posttest revealed the benefits of initial learning in low-transparency environments as students performed better on repeated and new inferential problems across virtual and physical platforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[1]  Michael Eisenberg,et al.  Beyond Black Boxes: Bringing Transparency and Aesthetics Back to Scientific Investigation , 2000 .

[2]  Yasmin B. Kafai Learning Design by Making Games: Children's Development of Design Strategies in the Creation of a Complex Computational Artifact , 2012 .

[3]  Elliot Soloway,et al.  DOES COMPUTER PROGRAMMING ENHANCE PROBLEM SOLVING ABILITY? SOME POSITIVE EVIDENCE ON ALGEBRA WORD PROBLEMS , 1982 .

[4]  Elizabeth Carruthers,et al.  Children's Mathematics: Making Marks, Making Meaning , 2006 .

[5]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  The transfer of abstract principles governing complex adaptive systems , 2003, Cognitive Psychology.

[6]  Jeremy Kilpatrick,et al.  Types of Generalization in Instruction: Logical and Psychological Problems in the Structuring of School Curricula , 1990 .

[7]  B. V. Oers,et al.  Promoting Abstract Thinking in Young Children’s Play , 2012 .

[8]  Selen Türkay,et al.  Learning by teaching with virtual peers and the effects of technological design choices on learning , 2013, Comput. Educ..

[9]  David J. Gilmore The Relevance of HCI Guidelines for Educational Interfaces , 1996 .

[10]  D. Uttal On the relation between play and symbolic thought: The case of mathematics manipulatives , 2003 .

[11]  J. Terwel,et al.  Schematising in early childhood mathematics education: Why, when and how? , 2004 .

[12]  S. Harkins Social loafing and self-evaluation with an objective standard*1 , 1988 .

[13]  D. Clements,et al.  Effects of Computer Programming on Young Children's Cognition , 1984 .

[14]  J. Shepperd Productivity loss in performance groups: A motivation analysis. , 1993 .

[15]  Mitchel Resnick,et al.  Constructionism in Practice: Designing, Thinking, and Learning in A Digital World , 1996 .

[16]  D. Salman,et al.  Development and learning in animals and man. , 1956, The American journal of psychiatry.

[17]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Schema induction and analogical transfer , 1983, Cognitive Psychology.

[18]  Seymour Papert,et al.  Mindstorms: Children, Computers, and Powerful Ideas , 1981 .

[19]  Marina Umaschi Bers,et al.  Teachers as Designers: Integrating Robotics in Early Childhood Education. , 2002 .

[20]  P. Johnson-Laird,et al.  Psychology of Reasoning: Structure and Content , 1972 .

[21]  Paul U. Lee,et al.  Pictorial and Verbal Tools for Conveying Routes , 1999, COSIT.

[22]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Physically Distributed Learning: Adapting and Reinterpreting Physical Environments in the Development of Fraction Concepts , 2005, Cogn. Sci..

[23]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  Learning by Teaching Human Pupils and Teachable Agents: The Importance of Recursive Feedback , 2013 .

[24]  Alan H. Schoenfeld,et al.  When Good Teaching Leads to Bad Results: The Disasters of 'Well-Taught' Mathematics Courses , 1988 .

[25]  Martin Hughes,et al.  Children and Number: Difficulties in Learning Mathematics , 1986 .

[26]  Kieran Egan,et al.  Teaching as Story Telling: An Alternative Approach to Teaching and Curriculum in the Elementary School , 1989 .

[27]  Ruven E. Brooks Towards a theory of the cognitive processes in computer programming , 1999, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[28]  David W. Carraher,et al.  Mathematics in the streets and in schools , 1985 .

[29]  Roy D. Pea,et al.  On the Cognitive Effects of Learning Computer Programming: A Critical Look. Technical Report No. 9. , 1987 .

[30]  Maria Kordaki Modeling and multiple representation systems in the design of a computer environment for the learning of programming and C by beginners , 2007 .

[31]  Lyle E. Bourne,et al.  Learning to think by learning LOGO: Rule learning in third-grade computer programmers , 1983 .

[32]  Linda Jarvin,et al.  When Theories Don't Add Up: Disentangling he Manipulatives Debate , 2007 .

[33]  Eric Eich,et al.  Context, memory, and integrated item/context imagery. , 1985 .