Implementation of Interactive Peer Learning Environment Enhances Learners‟ Self-Esteem and Self-Efficacy
Abstract
The study had objective to investigated how learners can be motivated to pass on their knowledge to others using interactive peer learning. Interactive peer learning that encourages teaching other students who seek help enhances learner self-esteem and self-efficacy. An excellent illustration of an interactive peer learning environment is a student who teaches their peer students through question-answer activities. The student‟s motivation rises while teaching peers and triggers teaching in others by interaction during collaborative learning. The experiment operated under two conditions: a blackboard system (BBS) and a computer-mediated environment (CME). A CME is an interaction model in which the system has the power to select which student will answer the questions, while a BBS is an interaction model whose system does not select the student who will answer the questions. The results found that self-efficacy was higher in the CME than the BBS.
References
E. A. Skinner and M. J. Belmont, “Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year.,” J. Educ. Psychol., vol. 85, no. 4, pp. 571–581, 1993.
R. E. Sutton and K. F. Wheatley, “Teachers'emotions 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, no. 2, pp. 95–115, 2005.
J. Holmes, “Designing agents to support learning by explaining,” Comput. Educ., vol. 48, no. 4, pp. 523–547, 2007.
C. Meyers and T. B. Jones, Promoting Active Learning: Strategies for the College Classroom (Jossey Bass Higher and Adult Education Series). Jossey-Bass, 1993.
E. Rienovita and Y. Takeuchi, “Encouragement of skill mastering motive based on need for approval and Interaction,” in Human Interface, pp. 235–238, 2014. (In Japanese)
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)
L. S. Vygotsky, Mind In Society. 1930.
L. S. Vygotsky, Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press, 1978.
T. J. Damrich, “Confronting the challenges of change,” Circuit World, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 2–3, 1994.
M. Itō, D. Okabe, and M. Matsuda, “Personal, Portable, Pedestrian-Mobile Phones in Japanese Life,” The MIT Press, 2006.
D. M. Boyd and N. B. Ellison, “Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship,” J. Computer-mediated Commun., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 210–230, 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, John Wiley & Sons, 1983.
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, 2003.
L. E. Winslow, “Programming pedagogy - A psychological overview,” ACM SIGCSE Bull., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 17–22, 1996.
T. Jenkins, “On the difficulty of learning to program,” Diffic. Learn. to Progr., vol. 4, pp. 53–58, 2002.
S. Dehnadi, “Testing programming aptitude,” Annu. Work. Psychol. Program., pp. 22–37, 2006.
R. Lister, B. Simon, E. Thompson, J. L. Whalley, and C. Prasad, “Not seeing the forest for the trees: Novice programmers and the SOLO taxonomy,” 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,” in Proceedings of the 34th SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, vol. 35, no. 1, p. 359-362, 2003.
L. Williams and R. L. Upchurch, “In support of student pair-programming,” in Proceedings of the 32nd SIGCSE Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 327–331, 2001.
D. R. Compeau and C. A. Higgins, “Computer self-efficacy: 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, p. 307-313, 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., vol. 74, no.6, 1989.
J. Webster and J. J. Martocchio, “Microcomputer playfulness: Development of a measure with workplace implications,” MIS Q., vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 201-226, 1992.
A. H. Maslow, “Dominance-feeling, behavior, and status.,” Psychol. Rev., vol. 44, pp. no. 5,pp. 404–429, 1937.
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, 1939.
A. H. Maslow, Toward a Psychology of Being, 2nd Ed. Insight, 1968.
M. G. Moore, “In Theory of transactional distance,” Theor. Princ. Distance Educ., D. Keegan Ed., pp. 22–38, Routledge, 1997.
M. Prince, “Does active learning work? A review of the research,” J. Eng. Educ. vol. 93, 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. pp. 359–389, 1998.
C. R. Greenwood, J. J. Carta, and R.V. Hall, “The use of peer tutoring strategies in classroom management and educational instruction.,” School Psychology Review.vol.17, no.2, pp.258-275, 1988.
B. Rogoff, Apprenticeship in Thinking: Cognitive Development in Social Context, Oxford University Press, 1991.
H. J. Hartman, “Factors affecting the tutoring process,” J. Dev. Educ., vol. 14, no.2, pp.2-4,1990.
P. A. Cohen, J. A. Kulik, C. C. Kulik, “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.” Routledge, 1993.
C. Mimura and P. Griffiths, “A Japanese version of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: Translation and equivalence assessment,” J. Psychosom. Res., vol. 62, no. 5, pp. 589–594, 2007.
A. Bandura, Social Foundations of Thought and Action : A Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice Hall, 1985.
S. L. 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, pp. 672–679.
