Author
Listed:
- Ilona Buchem
(Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Berlin University of Applied Sciences, 13353 Berlin, Germany)
- Stefano Sostak
(Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Berlin University of Applied Sciences, 13353 Berlin, Germany)
- Lewe Christiansen
(Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Berlin University of Applied Sciences, 13353 Berlin, Germany)
Abstract
Collaborative learning has been widely studied in higher education and beyond, suggesting that collaboration in small groups can be effective for promoting deeper learning, enhancing engagement and motivation, and improving a range of cognitive and social outcomes. The study presented in this paper compared different forms of human and robot facilitation in the game of planning poker, designed as a collaborative activity in the undergraduate course on agile project management. Planning poker is a consensus-based game for relative estimation in teams. Team members collaboratively estimate effort for a set of project tasks. In our study, student teams played the game of planning poker to estimate the effort required for project tasks by comparing task effort relative to one another. In this within- and between-subjects study, forty-nine students in eight teams participated in two out of four conditions. The four conditions differed in respect to the form of human and/or robot facilitation. Teams 1–4 participated in conditions C1 human online and C3 unsupervised robot, while teams 5–8 participated in conditions C2 human face to face and C4 supervised robot co-facilitation. While planning poker was facilitated by a human teacher in conditions C1 and C2, the NAO robot facilitated the game-play in conditions C3 and C4. In C4, the robot facilitation was supervised by a human teacher. The study compared these four forms of facilitation and explored the effects of the type of facilitation on the facilitator’s competence (FC), learning experience (LX), and learning outcomes (LO). The results based on the data from an online survey indicated a number of significant differences across conditions. While the facilitator’s competence and learning outcomes were rated higher in human (C1, C2) compared to robot (C3, C4) conditions, participants in the supervised robot condition (C4) experienced higher levels of focus, motivation, and relevance and a greater sense of control and sense of success, and rated their cognitive learning outcomes and the willingness to apply what was learned higher than in other conditions. These results indicate that human supervision during robot-led facilitation in collaborative learning (e.g., providing hints and situational information on demand) can be beneficial for learning experience and outcomes as it allows synergies to be created between human expertise and flexibility and the consistency of the robotic assistance.
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jjopen:v:7:y:2024:i:3:p:14-263:d:1435067. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.