Cited by 49Teaching and Learning ProgrammingEducational Robotics and EngineeringScience Education and Pedagogy

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

Okita, Sandra Y.·2014·British Journal of Educational Technology

Abstract

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/bjet.12101

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Some studies have shown that educational robotics have a positive effect on students' critical thinking and problem-solving skills.

    “Some studies have shown that educational robotics have a positive effect on students' critical thinking and problemsolving skills (e.g., Okita, 2014).”

    From A Systematic Review of Studies on Educational Robotics (2019) · cites this paper as Okita, 2014

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Okita, S. Y.
Affiliations
Columbia University (US)
Corresponding author
Okita, Sandra Y.
Venue
British Journal of Educational Technology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-09-24
Volume
45
Issue
5
Pages
844-862
ISSN
  • 0007-1013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-8535
OpenAlex
W1543845561
Cited by
49
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1
FWCI
2.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
British Journal of Educational Technology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Teaching and Learning Programming
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Educational Robotics and Engineering
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
Keywords
educational robotics, transparency, learning adaptability, knowledge transfer, novel problem solving, visual programming, text-based programming, programming education, fifth and sixth grade

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review