Implementation of Interactive Peer Learning Environment Enhances Learners‟ Self-Esteem and Self-Efficacy

Abstract

This study investigates how learners can be motivated to pass on their knowledge to others using interactive peer learning. Such learning environments provide learners with activities enhancing their self-esteem and self-efficacy by collaboration among other students. The experiment had two conditions: a blackboard system (BBS) and a computer-mediated environment (CME). CME is an interaction model where the system has the power to select which student will answer the questions. BBS is an interaction model whose system does not select the student who will answer questions. The result of experiment found that self-efficacy was higher in a computer-mediated environment (CME) than in Blackboard system (BBS). An excellent illustration of interactive peer learning environment is a student who is teaching others students as their peer by question-answer activities. The students’ motivation rises while they are teaching each other and triggers teaching in others by interactions during collaborative learning. 

Keywords: self-esteem, self-efficacy, collaboration, interactive peer learning environment, motivation.

Author Biographies

Ellina Rienovita, Shizuoka University

Graduate School of Science and Technology and Department Curriculum of Educational Technology

Masashi Taniguchi, Shizuoka University

Graduate School of Integrated Science and Technology

Masato Kawahara, Shizuoka University

Graduate School of Integrated Science and Technology

Yugo Hayashi, Ritsumeikan University

College of Comprehensive Psychology

Yugo Takeuchi, Shizuoka University

Graduate School of Science and Technology

References

E. A. Skinner and M. J. Belmont, “Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year.,” Journal of educational psychology, vol. 85, no. 4. American Psychological Association, p. 571, 1993.

R. E. Sutton and K. F. Wheatley, “Teachers’ emotion and teaching: A Review of the literature and directions for future research,” Educ. Psychol. Rev., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 327–358, 2003.

A. L. Baylor and Y. Kim, “Simulating instructional roles through pedagogical agents,” International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, vol. 15 com, no. 2. IOS Press, pp. 95–115, 2005.

J. Holmes, “Designing agents to support learning by explaining,” Comput. Educ., vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 523–547, 2007.

J. M. Bradshaw, “An Introduction to Software Agents,” in Software Agents, 1997, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 466–469.

M. Wooldridge and N. R. Jennings, “Intelligent Agents: Theory and Practice,” Knowl. Eng. Rev., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 115–152, 1995.

W. L. Johnson, J. W. Rickel, and J. C. Lester, “Animated pedagogical agents: Face-to-face interaction in interactive learning environments,” Int. J. Artif. Intell. Educ., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 47–78, 2000.

J. Bates, “The role of emotion in believable agents,” Commun. ACM, vol. 37, no. 7, pp. 122–125, 1994.

J. C. Lester, S. A. Converse, S. E. Kahler, and S. T. Barlow, “The persona effect: affective impact of animated pedagogical agents,” Pers. Eff. Affect. impact Animat. Pedagog. agents, 1997.

P. Maes, “Agents that reduce work and information overload,” Commun. ACM, vol. 37, no. 7, pp. 30–40, 1994.

R. D. Baker et al., “Adapting to when students game an intelligent tutoring system,” Proc. 8th Int. Conf. Intell. Tutoring Syst., pp. 392–401, 2006.

W. Burleson, I. Arroyo, and T. Dragon, “Affect-aware tutors: recognising and responding to student affect,” Int. J. Learn. Technol., vol. Vol. 4, no. Issue 3, p. pp.129-164, 2009.

C. Conati and X. Zhao, “Building and evaluating an intelligent pedagogical agent to improve the effectiveness of an educational game,” in Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Intelligence user interface-IUI’04, 2004.

G. Rebolledo-Mendez, B. du Boulay, and R. Luckin, “Motivating the Learner: An Empirical Evaluation,” in Intelligent Tutoring Systems, 2006, pp. 545–554.

C. Meyers and T. B. Jones, Promoting Active Learning: Strategies for the College Classroom (Jossey Bass Higher and Adult Education Series). 1993.

A. Gokhale, “Collaborative Learning Enhances Critical Thinking,” J. Technol. Educ., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 22–30, 1995.

B. Allen, A. Crosky, I. McAlpine, M. Hoffman, and P. Munroe, “A blended approach to collaborative learning: Can it make large group teaching more student-centred?,” in A blended approach to collaborative learning: Can it make large group teaching more student-centred?, 2006, pp. 33–41.

J. Greer et al., “The intelligent helpdesk: Supporting peer-help in a university course,” in Springer, 1998, pp. 494–503.

M. Pressley, E. Wood, V. E. Woloshyn, and V. Martin, “Encouraging mindful use of prior knowledge: Attempting to construct explanatory answers facilitates learning,” Educ. Psychol., 1992.

B. Reeves and C. Nass, How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. Cambridge University Press, 1996.

A. Bandura, “Social cognitive theory : An agentic Albert Bandura,” Asian J. Soc. Psychol., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 21–41, 1999.

A. Bandura, “Theoretical perspectives,” in Self-efficacy: The exercise of control, vol. 50, 1997, p. 604.

L. S. Vygotsky, Mind and Society Harvard University Press. 1930.

L. S. Vygotsky, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. 1978.

T. J. Damrich, “Confronting the Challenges of Change,” Circuit World, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 2–3, Apr. 1994.

M. Itō, D. Okabe, and M. Matsuda, “Personal, Portable, Pedestrian-Mobile Phones in Japanese Life,” East Asian Sci. Technol. Soc. An Int. J., vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 147–151, 2006.

D. M. Boyd and N. B. Ellison, “Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship,” J. Comput. Commun., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 210–230, Oct. 2007.

N. Friesen and S. Lowe, “The questionable promise of social media for education: Connective learning and the commercial imperative,” J. Comput. Assist. Learn., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 183–194, 2012.

W. W. Hartup, “Peer relations,” in Handbook of child psychology: formerly Carmichael’s Manual of child psychology, New York: Wiley, 1983.

E. Rienovita, M. Taniguchi, M. Kawahara, Y. Hayashi, and Y. Takeuchi, “Enhancement of Learning Interaction by Need for Approval,” in Human Interface, 2015, pp. 323–326. (in Japanese)

A. Robins, J. Rountree, and N. Rountree, “Learning and Teaching Programming: A Review and Discussion,” Comput. Sci. Educ., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 137–172, Jun. 2003.

L. E. Winslow, “Programming Pedagogy - A Psychological Overview,” ACM SIGCSE Bull., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 17–22, 1996.

S. Dehnadi and R. Bornat, “The camel has two humps (working title),” Middlesex Univ. UK, pp. 1–21, 2006.

T. Jenkins, “On the difficulty of learning to program,” Diffic. Learn. to Progr., vol. 4, pp. 53–58, 2002.

R. Lister, B. Simon, E. Thompson, J. L. Whalley, and C. Prasad, “Not seeing the forest for the trees,” in Proceedings of the 11th annual SIGCSE conference on Innovation and technology in computer science education - ITICSE ’06, 2006, pp. 118–122.

C. P. Reddy, “Analysis of Teaching Computer Programming in Indian Context,” J. Eng. Educ. Transform., vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 50–55, 2015.

N. Nagappan et al., “Improving the CS1 experience with pair programming,” ACM SIGCSE Bull., vol. 35, no. 1, p. 359, 2003.

L. Williams and R. L. Upchurch, “In support of student pair-programming,” ACM SIGCSE Bull., vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 327–331, 2001.

D. R. Compeau and C. A. Higgins, “Development of a Measure and Initial Test,” MIS Q., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 189–211, 1995.

T. Hill, N. D. Smith, and M. F. Mann, “Role of efficacy expectations in predicting the decision to use advanced technologies: The case of computers.,” Journal of applied psychology, vol. 72, no. 2. American Psychological Association, p. 307, 1987.

M. E. Gist, C. Schwoerer, and B. Rosen, “Effects of alternative training methods on self-efficacy and performance in computer software training.,” J. Appl. Psychol., 1989.

J. Webster and J. J. Martocchio, “Microcomputer Playfulness: Development of a Measure with Workplace Implications,” MIS Q., vol. 16, no. 2, p. 201, Jun. 1992.

A. H. Maslow, “Dominance-feeling, behavior, and status.,” Psychol. Rev., vol. 44, pp. 404–429, 1937.

A. H. Maslow, Toward a psychology of being, 2nd ed. 1968.

K. Young, J. Dollard, N. E. Miller, L. W. Doob, and H. A. Murray, “Frustration and Aggression.,” Am. Sociol. Rev., vol. 4, no. 4, p. 576, Aug. 1939.

M. G. Moore, “Theory of transactional distance,” Theor. Princ. Distance Educ., pp. 22–38, 1997.

M. Prince, “Does active learning work? A review of the research,” J. Eng. Educ. Washingt., vol. Vol. 93, no. July, pp. 223–232, 2004.

G. S. Stump, J. C. Hilpert, J. Husman, W.-T. Chung, and W. Kim, “Collaborative learning in engineering students: Gender and achievement,” J. Eng. Educ., vol. 100, no. 3, pp. 475–497, 2011.

L. Mason, “Sharing cognition to construct scientific knowledge in school context: The role of oral and written discourse,” Instructional science, vol. 26, no. 5. Springer, pp. 359–389, 1998.

J. Rickel and W. L. Johnson, “Animated Agents for Procedural Training in Virtual Reality: Perception, Cognition, and Motor Control,” Appl. Artif. Intell., vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 343–382, 1999.

J. C. Lester and B. A. Stone, “Increasing believability in animated pedagogical agents,” in ACM, 1997, pp. 16–21.

N. C. Krämer, G. Bente, F. Eschenburg, and H. Troitzsch, “Embodied Conversational Agents,” Soc. Psychol. (Gott)., vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 26–36, Jan. 2009.

K. P. Meadow and M. Argyle, “Bodily Communication.,” Contemp. Sociol., vol. Vol.5, no. 6, p. 820, Nov. 1976.

C. R. Greenwood, J. J. Carta, and V. R. Hall, “The use of peer tutoring strategies in classroom management and educational instruction.,” School Psychology Review. National Assn of School Psychologists, 1988.

B. Rogoff, Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context, vol. 249, no. 4969. 1990.

H. J. Hartman, “Factors affecting the tutoring process,” J. Dev. Educ., 1990.

P. A. Cohen, J. A. Kulik, C. C. Kulik, and P. A. Cohen, “Educational Outcomes of Tutoring : A Meta-Analysis of Findings,” Am. Educ. Res. J., vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 237–248, 1982.

C. A. Rohrbeck, M. D. Ginsburg-Block, J. W. Fantuzzo, and T. R. Miller, “Peer-assisted learning interventions with elementary school students: A meta-analytic review,” J. Educ. Psychol., vol. 95, no. 2, pp. 240–257, 2003.

S. Bandini, S. Manzoni, and G. Vizzari, “Agent Based Modeling and Simulation: An Informatics Perspective,” J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul., vol. 12, no. 4, p. 4, 2009.

D. Laurillard, “Rethinking University Teaching: A Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology,” London, 1993.

A. Bandura, Social foundations of thought and action : a social cognitive theory / Albert Bandura. 1986.

S. Britner and F. Pajares, “Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, race, and gender in middle school science,” J. Women Minor. Sci. Eng., vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 269–283, 2001.

E. Rienovita, M. Taniguchi, M. Kawahara, Y. Hayashi, and Y. Takeuchi, “Effect of Human Agent Interaction Improves Self-Esteem and Students’ Motivation,” in IIAI International Congress on Advanced Applied Informatics 2017, 2017, pp. 672–679.

Published
2018-03-31