Individual versus collaborative problem solving: divergent outcomes depending on task complexity

Many studies have tested external supports for promoting productive collaboration, but relatively few have examined what features characterize naturally productive collaborative tasks. Two lines of research have come to distinct conclusions on the primary task feature associated with productive collaboration: demonstrability versus complexity. This study examined the problem-solving performance of 110 seventh grade students on a demonstrable mathematical task, including 69 in three traditional math classrooms (for whom the task was complex) and 41 in two accelerated math classrooms (for whom the task was not complex). Students were further assigned to one of four conditions split by two factors: grouping (individual versus dyad) and number of problems (one or two). For the accelerated math classes, individuals performed significantly better than dyads. For the traditional math classes, dyads performed significantly better than individuals and exceeded the truth-wins criterion (a theoretical maximum indicating how individuals would perform if they shared knowledge perfectly). A complex-demonstrable task framework is proposed for characterizing naturally productive collaborative tasks.

[1]  P. R. Laughlin,et al.  Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: effects of group size. , 2006, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

[2]  Patrick R. Laughlin,et al.  Social combination processes and individual learning for six-person cooperative groups on an intellective task. , 1980 .

[3]  J. Valacich,et al.  Computer brainstorms: More heads are better than one. , 1993 .

[4]  David A. Sears,et al.  Effects of Cooperative Versus Individual Study on Learning and Motivation After Reward-Removal , 2012 .

[5]  M. E. Shaw.  A comparison of individuals and small groups in the rational solution of complex problems. , 1932 .

[6]  E. Cohen.  Restructuring the Classroom: Conditions for Productive Small Groups , 1994 .

[7]  N. Kerr,et al.  Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free-rider effects , 1983 .

[8]  Brigid Barron.  When Smart Groups Fail , 2003 .

[9]  Tatsuya Kameda,et al.  Effects of Assigned Group Consensus Requirement on Group Problem Solving and Group Members' Learning , 1991 .

[10]  Patrick R. Laughlin,et al.  Group-to-individual and individual-to-group problem-solving transfer. , 1981 .

[11]  Manu Kapur.  Productive failure in mathematical problem solving , 2010 .

[12]  P. R. Laughlin,et al.  Demonstrability and social combination processes on mathematical intellective tasks. , 1986 .

[13]  Rachel A. Lotan,et al.  Can Groups Learn , 2002 .

[14]  Mary Besterfield-Sacre,et al.  Predicting STEM Degree Outcomes Based on Eighth Grade Data and Standard Test Scores , 2010 .

[15]  Jeroen Janssen,et al.  Effects of representational guidance during computer-supported collaborative learning , 2008, ICLS.

[16]  J. Tuovinen,et al.  A comparison of cognitive load associated with discovery learning and worked examples , 1999 .

[17]  M. Diehl,et al.  Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Toward the solution of a riddle. , 1987 .

[18]  Edward L. Deci,et al.  Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior , 1975, Perspectives in Social Psychology.

[19]  I. Steiner.  Models for inferring relationships between group size and potential group productivity. , 1966, Behavioral science.

[20]  Angela M. O'Donnell.  Effects of explicit incentives on scripted and unscripted cooperation , 1996 .

[21]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  A time for telling , 1998 .

[22]  Nancy T. Blaney,et al.  Interdependence in the Classroom: A Field Study , 1977 .

[23]  Brigid Barron,et al.  Problem Solving in Video-based Microworlds: Collaborative and Individual Outcomes of High-Achieving Sixth-Grade Students. , 2000 .

[24]  John H. Kagel,et al.  Are Two Heads Better Than One? Team versus Individual Play in Signaling Games , 2005 .

[25]  David W. Johnson,et al.  An Educational Psychology Success Story: Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning , 2009 .

[26]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Schema induction and analogical transfer , 1983, Cognitive Psychology.

[27]  R. Slavin.  Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research and Practice , 1990 .

[28]  R. Stark,et al.  Reflection in example- and problem-based learning: effects of reflection prompts, feedback and cooperative learning , 2010 .

[29]  K. Williams,et al.  Many Hands Make Light the Work: The Causes and Consequences of Social Loafing , 1979 .

[30]  Ference Marton,et al.  Sameness and Difference in Transfer , 2006 .

[31]  P. R. Laughlin,et al.  Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: effects of group size. , 2006, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[32]  N. Kerr,et al.  Group performance and decision making. , 2004, Annual review of psychology.

[33]  Carol K. K. Chan.  Peer collaboration and discourse patterns in learning from incompatible information , 2001 .

[34]  G. W. Hill.  Group versus individual performance: are n + 1 heads better than one?" psychological bulletin , 1982 .

[35]  R. Slavin.  Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. , 1996 .

[36]  Noreen M. Webb,et al.  The role of teacher instructional practices in student collaboration , 2008 .

[37]  A. Bandura.  Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control , 1997, Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy.

[38]  Angela M. O'Donnell.  The Role of Peers and Group Learning , 2006 .

[39]  F. Fischer,et al.  Epistemic and social scripts in computer–supported collaborative learning , 2005 .

[40]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Cooperation and Competition: Theory and Research , 1989 .

[41]  I. Steiner.  Group process and productivity , 1972 .

[42]  P. Winne,et al.  Handbook of educational psychology , 2015 .

[43]  Elizabeth G. Cohen,et al.  Can Classrooms Learn , 1989 .

[44]  Susan G. Straus,et al.  Group-to-Individual Transfer of Learning , 2004 .

[45]  Patrick R. Laughlin,et al.  Group-to-Individual Problem-Solving Transfer , 2008 .

[46]  B. French,et al.  An Examination of Indicators of Engineering Students' Success and Persistence , 2005 .

[47]  Karsten Stegmann,et al.  Collaborative argumentation and cognitive elaboration in a computer-supported collaborative learning environment , 2012 .

[48]  Rachel A. Lotan,et al.  Complex instruction: Equity in cooperative learning classrooms , 1999 .

[49]  Patricia F. Vadasy,et al.  Cooperative Learning: Prevalence, Conceptualizations, and the Relation Between Research and Practice , 1998 .

[50]  Rachel A. Lotan,et al.  Working for Equity in Heterogeneous Classrooms: Sociological Theory in Practice (Sociology of Education Series) , 1997 .

[51]  Daniel L. Schwartz,et al.  The Emergence of Abstract Representations in Dyad Problem Solving , 1995 .

[52]  R. Atkinson,et al.  Structuring the Transition From Example Study to Problem Solving in Cognitive Skill Acquisition: A Cognitive Load Perspective , 2003 .

[53]  Herbert Solomon,et al.  Two models of group behavior in the solution of eureka-type problems , 1955 .

[54]  N. Kerr,et al.  Group Process, Group Decision, Group Action , 1992 .

[55]  Ton de Jong,et al.  Effects of within-class ability grouping on social interaction, achievement, and motivation , 2005 .

[56]  P. R. Laughlin,et al.  Groups Perform Better than the Best Individuals on Letters-to-numbers Problems: Effects of Group Size Two-letter Substitution Strategy , 2003 .