使用学徒模式促进小组学习:哪个大师在编程教学中更有效?

IF 4 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Manuel B. Garcia
{"title":"使用学徒模式促进小组学习:哪个大师在编程教学中更有效?","authors":"Manuel B. Garcia","doi":"10.1177/07356331231170382","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Computer programming is a difficult course for many students. Prior works advocated for group learning pedagogies in pursuit of higher-level reasoning and conceptual understanding. However, the methodological gaps in existing implementations warrant further research. This study conducted a three-armed cluster-randomized controlled trial to comparatively evaluate the social and cognitive effects of group learning pedagogies in computer programming. Following an apprenticeship model, each group has a designated master: drivers in pair programming (PP), peer leaders in peer-led team learning (PLTL), and practitioners in practitioner-assisted group learning (PAGL). In all course deliverables, the PP group received the lowest mean scores. Meanwhile, no significant difference was found between the PLTL and PAGL groups. Except for psychological safety, social factors such as task cohesion, interdependence, and group potency were significantly different between the groups. Both PLTL and PAGL groups reported a significant increase in social factors after 14 weeks of intervention. These findings provide a rationale for educational leaders and teachers to formulate curricular plans that integrate PLTL and PAGL in computer programming education. Overall, this study contributes to the literature on group learning, expands the pedagogies in computer programming, and serves as additional empirical evidence on cognitive apprenticeship and sociocultural perspectives of learning.","PeriodicalId":47865,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Educational Computing Research","volume":"130 2","pages":"1207 - 1231"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Facilitating Group Learning Using an Apprenticeship Model: Which Master is More Effective in Programming Instruction?\",\"authors\":\"Manuel B. Garcia\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/07356331231170382\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Computer programming is a difficult course for many students. Prior works advocated for group learning pedagogies in pursuit of higher-level reasoning and conceptual understanding. However, the methodological gaps in existing implementations warrant further research. This study conducted a three-armed cluster-randomized controlled trial to comparatively evaluate the social and cognitive effects of group learning pedagogies in computer programming. Following an apprenticeship model, each group has a designated master: drivers in pair programming (PP), peer leaders in peer-led team learning (PLTL), and practitioners in practitioner-assisted group learning (PAGL). In all course deliverables, the PP group received the lowest mean scores. Meanwhile, no significant difference was found between the PLTL and PAGL groups. Except for psychological safety, social factors such as task cohesion, interdependence, and group potency were significantly different between the groups. Both PLTL and PAGL groups reported a significant increase in social factors after 14 weeks of intervention. These findings provide a rationale for educational leaders and teachers to formulate curricular plans that integrate PLTL and PAGL in computer programming education. Overall, this study contributes to the literature on group learning, expands the pedagogies in computer programming, and serves as additional empirical evidence on cognitive apprenticeship and sociocultural perspectives of learning.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47865,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Educational Computing Research\",\"volume\":\"130 2\",\"pages\":\"1207 - 1231\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Educational Computing Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331231170382\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Educational Computing Research","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331231170382","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

计算机编程对许多学生来说是一门很难的课程。先前的作品提倡小组学习教学法,以追求更高层次的推理和概念理解。然而,现有实施方法上的差距值得进一步研究。本研究采用三臂随机对照试验,比较评估小组学习教学法在计算机程序设计教学中的社会和认知效果。遵循学徒模式,每个小组都有一个指定的大师:结对编程(PP)的驱动者,同伴领导团队学习(PLTL)的同伴领导,以及实践者辅助小组学习(PAGL)的实践者。在所有课程成果中,PP组的平均分数最低。同时,PLTL组与PAGL组间无显著差异。除心理安全感外,任务凝聚力、相互依赖、群体效力等社会因素在群体间存在显著差异。在干预14周后,PLTL组和PAGL组都报告了社会因素的显著增加。这些发现为教育领导者和教师制定将PLTL和PAGL整合到计算机编程教育中的课程计划提供了理论依据。总的来说,本研究对小组学习的文献有贡献,扩展了计算机编程的教学法,并为认知学徒制和学习的社会文化视角提供了额外的经验证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Facilitating Group Learning Using an Apprenticeship Model: Which Master is More Effective in Programming Instruction?
Computer programming is a difficult course for many students. Prior works advocated for group learning pedagogies in pursuit of higher-level reasoning and conceptual understanding. However, the methodological gaps in existing implementations warrant further research. This study conducted a three-armed cluster-randomized controlled trial to comparatively evaluate the social and cognitive effects of group learning pedagogies in computer programming. Following an apprenticeship model, each group has a designated master: drivers in pair programming (PP), peer leaders in peer-led team learning (PLTL), and practitioners in practitioner-assisted group learning (PAGL). In all course deliverables, the PP group received the lowest mean scores. Meanwhile, no significant difference was found between the PLTL and PAGL groups. Except for psychological safety, social factors such as task cohesion, interdependence, and group potency were significantly different between the groups. Both PLTL and PAGL groups reported a significant increase in social factors after 14 weeks of intervention. These findings provide a rationale for educational leaders and teachers to formulate curricular plans that integrate PLTL and PAGL in computer programming education. Overall, this study contributes to the literature on group learning, expands the pedagogies in computer programming, and serves as additional empirical evidence on cognitive apprenticeship and sociocultural perspectives of learning.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Educational Computing Research
Journal of Educational Computing Research EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
11.90
自引率
6.20%
发文量
69
期刊介绍: The goal of this Journal is to provide an international scholarly publication forum for peer-reviewed interdisciplinary research into the applications, effects, and implications of computer-based education. The Journal features articles useful for practitioners and theorists alike. The terms "education" and "computing" are viewed broadly. “Education” refers to the use of computer-based technologies at all levels of the formal education system, business and industry, home-schooling, lifelong learning, and unintentional learning environments. “Computing” refers to all forms of computer applications and innovations - both hardware and software. For example, this could range from mobile and ubiquitous computing to immersive 3D simulations and games to computing-enhanced virtual learning environments.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信