Effects of argumentation on group micro-creativity: Statistical discourse analyses of algebra students’ collaborative problem solving

Abstract The micro-time context of group processes (such as argumentation) can affect a group’s micro-creativity (new ideas). Eighty high school students worked in groups of four on an algebra problem. Groups with higher mathematics grades showed greater micro-creativity, and both were linked to better problem solving outcomes. Dynamic multilevel analyses of the groups’ 2951 turns of conversation statistically yielded 53 watersheds (breakpoints) that separated 36 high micro-creativity time periods from 37 low ones. Group member actions within the last two speaker turns also influenced micro-creativity. Compared to agreements, recent disagreements yielded 11% greater micro-creativity. Students who behaved rudely (rude disagreements, commands) showed less micro-creativity (−15% and −9%) than those who behaved politely (polite disagreements, questions/statements). In a special case, after a wrong idea, rude rather than polite disagreements raised groupmates’ micro-creativity (+60%). Teachers might encourage students to evaluate ideas carefully, speak politely, and avoid impulsive responses to rude behaviors.

[1]  P. Cobb,et al.  Sociomathematical Norms, Argumentation, and Autonomy in Mathematics. , 1996 .

[2]  B. Nijstad,et al.  Group creativity : An introduction , 2003 .

[3]  Kevin Durkin,et al.  Language in Mathematical Education: Research and Practice , 1991 .

[4]  C. Nemeth,et al.  Modelling courage: The role of dissent in fostering independence. , 1988 .

[5]  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.

[6]  Frances J. Milliken,et al.  Diversity and creativity in work groups: A dynamic perspective on the affective and cognitive processes that link diversity and performance. , 2003 .

[7]  W. Doise,et al.  Social interaction and the development of cognitive operations , 1975 .

[8]  Peter E. Kennedy.  A Guide to Econometrics , 1979 .

[9]  Susanne P. Lajoie,et al.  Computers As Cognitive Tools , 2020 .

[10]  Risto Lehtonen,et al.  Multilevel Statistical Models , 2005 .

[11]  K. Wentzel,et al.  Peer Relationships and Collaborative Learning as Contexts for Academic Enablers , 2002 .

[12]  S. Green.  How Many Subjects Does It Take To Do A Regression Analysis. , 1991, Multivariate behavioral research.

[13]  Myron H. Dembo,et al.  Effects of perceived ability and grade status on social interaction and influence in cooperative groups. , 1987 .

[14]  G. Box,et al.  On a measure of lack of fit in time series models , 1978 .

[15]  Richard De Lisi,et al.  Implications of Piagetian theory for peer learning. , 1999 .

[16]  Céline Darnon,et al.  Conflict Elaboration and Cognitive Outcomes , 2004 .

[17]  Noreen M. Webb.  Sex Differences in Interaction and Achievement in Cooperative Small Groups , 1984 .

[18]  Angela M. O'Donnell,et al.  Cognitive Perspectives on Peer Learning , 1999 .

[19]  C. D. De Dreu,et al.  Minority dissent and team innovation: the importance of participation in decision making. , 2001, The Journal of applied psychology.

[20]  Cody Ding,et al.  Do Mathematical Gender Differences Continue? A Longitudinal Study of Gender Difference and Excellence in Mathematics Performance in the U.S. , 2006 .

[21]  P. McLeod,et al.  Ethnic Diversity and Creativity in Small Groups , 1996 .

[22]  Michael A. West,et al.  Reflexivity, revolution and innovation in work teams , 2000 .

[23]  George B. Johnson.  How scientists think , 1995 .

[24]  M. Chiu,et al.  A New Method for Analyzing Sequential Processes , 2005 .

[25]  Scott D. Bradshaw,et al.  Explanations of Individual-Group Performance Differences , 1995 .

[26]  Joseph Berger,et al.  Status Characteristics and Social Interaction , 1972 .

[27]  What Scientists Think , 2005 .

[28]  C. Gersick.  Time and Transition in Work Teams: Toward a New Model of Group Development , 1988 .

[29]  Rolf A. Zwaan,et al.  Pragmatics and Pedagogy: Conversational Rules and Politeness Strategies May Inhibit Effective Tutoring , 1995 .

[30]  J. Sinclair,et al.  Towards an analysis of discourse , 1977 .

[31]  Nicholas O. Jungheim,et al.  Pragmatics and pedagogy , 1999 .

[32]  E. Mannix,et al.  The Dynamic Nature of Conflict: A Longitudinal Study of Intragroup Conflict and Group Performance. , 2001 .

[33]  Y. Benjamini,et al.  Adaptive linear step-up procedures that control the false discovery rate , 2006 .

[34]  B. Nijstad,et al.  Cognitive stimulation and interference in idea generating groups , 2003 .

[35]  J. Burgoon,et al.  Adaptation in Dyadic Interaction: Defining and Operationalizing Patterns of Reciprocity and Compensation , 1993 .

[36]  Ming Ming Chiu,et al.  Effects of status on solutions, leadership, and evaluations during group problem solving , 2000 .

[37]  Sarah J. Tracy,et al.  Rudeness at 911 Reconceptualizing Face and Face Attack , 1998 .

[38]  J. R. Larson,et al.  Diagnosing groups : Charting the flow of information in medical decision-making teams , 1996 .

[39]  E. Cohen,et al.  EXPECTATION STATES AND INTERRACIAL INTERACTION IN SCHOOL SETTINGS , 1982 .

[40]  Catherine M. Mulryan.  Student Passivity During Cooperative Small Groups in Mathematics , 1992 .

[41]  G. Stasser,et al.  Group Creativity and Collective Choice , 2019, The Oxford Handbook of Group Creativity and Innovation.

[42]  T. Holtgraves.  Yes, but... , 1997 .

[43]  Linda Shields,et al.  Content Analysis , 2015 .

[44]  Mark H. Ashcraft,et al.  Working memory, math performance, and math anxiety , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[45]  Jiangmin Xu,et al.  The causal ordering of mathematics anxiety and mathematics achievement: a longitudinal panel analysis. , 2004, Journal of adolescence.

[46]  J. Tudge.  When collaboration leads to regression-Some negative consequences of socio-cognitive conflict , 1989 .

[47]  Ming Ming Chiu,et al.  Group Problem-Solving Processes: Social Interactions and Individual Actions , 2000 .

[48]  John D. Rogers,et al.  Dissent and the search for information. , 1996 .

[49]  Anna Sfard,et al.  When the Rules of Discourse Change, but Nobody Tells You: Making Sense of Mathematics Learning From a Commognitive Standpoint , 2007 .

[50]  Penelope Brown,et al.  Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage , 1989 .

[51]  G. Box,et al.  The likelihood function of stationary autoregressive-moving average models , 1979 .

[52]  M. Turner.  GROUPS AT WORK: THEORY AND RESEARCH , 2002 .

[53]  Garold Stasser,et al.  Speaking turns in face-to-face discussions. , 1991 .

[54]  J. R. Larson,et al.  Deep Diversity and Strong Synergy , 2007 .

[55]  Jeffrey T. Polzer,et al.  Fostering Group Identification and Creativity in Diverse Groups: The Role of Individuation and Self-Verification , 2003, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[56]  A. Columbus.  Advances in Psychology Research , 2005 .

[57]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Learning Together and Alone. Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning. Fourth Edition. , 1991 .

[58]  Noreen M. Webb,et al.  Developing productive group interaction in middle school mathematics , 1999 .

[59]  R. K. Elliott.  The Concept of Creativity , 1971 .

[60]  Randy Hirokawa,et al.  To Err is Human, to Correct for it Divine , 2001 .

[61]  P. Paulus.  Groups, Teams, and Creativity: The Creative Potential of Idea-generating Groups , 2000 .

[62]  J. Gill.  Hierarchical Linear Models , 2005 .

[63]  M. Chiu,et al.  Rudeness and status effects during group problem solving: Do they bias evaluations and reduce the likelihood of correct solutions? , 2003 .

[64]  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 .

[65]  N. Civettini.  Similarity and Group Performance , 2007 .

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

[67]  H Goldstein,et al.  Multilevel time series models with applications to repeated measures data. , 1994, Statistics in medicine.

[68]  David W. Johnson,et al.  The State of Cooperative Learning in Postsecondary and Professional Settings , 2007 .

[69]  Duane T. Wegener,et al.  Attitudes and attitude change. , 1997, Annual review of psychology.

[70]  Richard Clarke,et al.  Building on Diversity , 2006 .

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

[72]  Jan-Willem Strijbos,et al.  The effect of functional roles on perceived group efficiency during computer-supported collaborative learning: a matter of triangulation , 2007, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[73]  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.

[74]  D. Kuhn,et al.  Effects of Dyadic Interaction on Argumentive Reasoning , 1997 .

[75]  References , 1971 .

[76]  R. Sternberg.  Handbook of Creativity: Subject Index , 1998 .

[77]  M. Mumford,et al.  Creativity syndrome: Integration, application, and innovation. , 1988 .

[78]  J. Turner.  Explaining the nature of power: a three-process theory , 2005 .

[79]  M. Coulthard,et al.  Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis , 1992 .

[80]  William B. Swann,et al.  The self and identity negotiation , 2005 .

[81]  Mike Mcnamee,et al.  Continuing professional development: suggestions for effective practice , 2004 .

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