Assignment Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/An-Intervention-Framework-Designed-To-D 👈

1. DEVELOPMENT ARTICLE
An intervention framework designed to develop
the collaborative problem-solving skills of primary school
students
Xiaoqing Gu • Shan Chen • Wenbo Zhu • Lin Lin
Published online: 7 January 2015
Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2015
Abstract Considerable effort has been invested in innovative learning practices such as
collaborative inquiry. Collaborative problem solving is becoming popular in school set-
tings, but there is limited knowledge on how to develop skills crucial in collaborative
problem solving in students. Based on the intervention design in social interaction of
collaborative learning combined with the work from the cognitive and metacognitive
processes of problem solving, we designed and incorporated an intervention framework for
a collaborative inquiry project at primary schools in Shanghai. This framework aimed to
develop the skills required to execute joint problem-solving tasks in students. Two classes
with a total of 59 students participated in this 2-month experiment with an independently
varied design. The results indicated that the students who received intervention gained in
the main indicators of higher group skills and problem solving skills. The value of pre-
paring group skills for students and the implications of supporting collaborative learning in
school settings were discussed.
Keywords Collaborative problem solving Intervention framework Skills Elementary
school students
Introduction
Collaborative learning was only in the peripheral in classrooms in China until it was
proposed as a creative pedagogy in the recent curriculum reform (Wang and Gao 1996;
X. Gu () S. Chen W. Zhu
Department of Educational Information Technology, East China Normal University,
3663 Zhangshan Road North, Shanghai 200062, China
e-mail: xqgu@ses.ecnu.edu.cn; guxqecnu@gmail.com
L. Lin
Department of Learning Technologies, College of Information, University of North Texas, UNT
Discovery Park, G150 (G189), 3940 North Elm Street, Denton, TX 76207-7102, USA
123
Education Tech Research Dev (2015) 63:143–159
DOI 10.1007/s11423-014-9365-2

2. Wang 2002). Collaborative problem solving, which is an important element of collabo-
rative and inquiry-based learning, has become increasingly popular in learning sciences
around the world. Its widely accepted principle is that students should develop the ability
to construct understanding by collaborating with others so that they will better understand
one another, and that they will build new knowledge through the process of problem
solving (Hogan 1999; Scardamalia et al. 1994).
Collaboration in the classroom is usually carried out by seating students in groups,
having them discuss given topics, or assigning them joint or shared tasks. However,
research indicates that grouping students to work together does not automatically create
collaboration (Yan and Cheng 2007; Blatchford et al. 2007; Karakostas and Demetriadis
2011). This is especially the case when the students have not yet developed effective
communication, cooperation, and problem solving skills. Inquiry-based learning, which
requires students to apply complex cognitive and metacognitive skills to solve problems,
rarely leads to productive learning outcomes without adequate structured support (Hogan
1999; Kim and Hannafin 2011; Kershner et al. 2012). Thus, scholars in learning sciences
are faced with the challenge of helping students to develop crucial skills to solve problems
collaboratively. Such skills include skills to interact, collaborate, represent, and collec-
tively make sense of problems (Belland et al. 2011; Dawes et al. 2003).
The work presented here is an intervention design of the KFIT (Korea Fund in Trust)
International School Project (KISP). KISP is a UNESCO Bangkok project that aims to
facilitate effective information and communication technology (ICT) integration and
facilitate ICT-enabled inquiry learning. KISP engages participants from Canada, China,
Malaysia, and Thailand in interdisciplinary, cross-school, and cross-cultural activities. The
intervention framework designed in this study was to foster the basic collaborative prob-
lem-solving skills in primary school students who were learning science through a col-
laborative inquiry project in Shanghai. The intervention implemented in the inquiry project
was intended to guide students to undertake the problem-solving process by communi-
cating, making group problem-solving plans and organizing group work effectively.
Therefore, the focus of this study was to examine the intervention strategies that might
improve students’ collaborative problem-solving skills, so that they could better participate
in the KISP’s collaborative inquiry learning process. As discussed in their review, Kim and
Hannafin mentioned that surprisingly little has been known about how (or if) the inter-
vention is effective in the classroom, although there have been numerous studies reported
on fostering student problem solving skills. This study therefore will provide insights into
effective intervention to help students develop collaborative problem-solving skills, and as
a result, will contribute to the research on collaborative learning in school settings.
Literature review
Research on collaboration and learning has documented various benefits of students’
working together, including, for instance, positive attitudes towards school, increased
achievement, engagement and motivation (Johnson and Johnson 1975; Slavin 1987; Vye
et al. 1998). When students collaborate, they encounter ideas that are different from their
own. The difference may lead them to look up for new information, clarify their ideas, and
justify or to modify their positions. The students are learning in the working process. In
addition, when working together, students may come up with approaches to solving
problems that none of them would have been able to think about on their own. In the
144 X. Gu et al.
123

3. collaborative process, students need to organize and reorganize their thoughts; meanwhile,
they help each other identify the gaps in their understanding and help each other learn.
Scholars have also discussed challenges of collaborative learning, including, for
instance, it is often off-task, uncooperative, arbitrary, and of little educational value (Yan
and Cheng 2007). Blatchford et al. (2007) identified the main factors that were the basis of
successful collaborative learning, namely, well-designed group relationships, learning
tasks, supportive interactions among group members, and student training for effective
group dynamics. When the collaborative task is to solve a problem jointly, students are
faced with more complex cognitive, metacognitive, and strategic challenges such as
organising and retrieving knowledge, modelling and monitoring solutions, representing
convincing ideas, and evaluating and reflecting on their learning (Ge and Land 2003;
Wegerif 2006; Belland et al. 2011; Bulu and Pedersen 2012; Kershner et al. 2012). Without
adequate training, students can have difficulty achieving productive outcomes from col-
laborative problem solving.
Although there is limited literature on developing students’ collaborative problem-
solving skills in the classroom, studies have emerged on intervention designs to explore
problem solving and group interactions. In this study, intervention is defined as any kind of
external support. Such support can be found in the literature as refining instructional
methods, strategies, and programmes (e.g., Hogan 1999; Dawes 2004; Rummel and Spada
2005; Wegerif and Mansour 2010; Argelagós and Pifarré 2012). It can refer to any form of
scaffolding provided within a social context in the form of tutoring or technical support
(e.g. Wood et al. 1976; Ge and Land 2003; Belland et al. 2011; Cortez et al. 2009; Kim and
Hannafin 2011; Raes et al. 2012). It can also refer to the structuring design of socio-
cognitive tools (Weinberger et al. 2007; Caballé et al. 2011).
In social interaction, the role of classroom discourse is the focus of collaboration
because of the importance of interpersonal relations for the sharing and co-construction of
knowledge (Blatchford et al. 2007; Kershner et al. 2012). A number of studies have
explored interpersonal dialogue that supports group work in classrooms and have devel-
oped effective programmes to draw learners into dialogues to enhance knowledge sharing
and co-construction. For instance, a series of ‘‘talk lessons’’ (Dawes 2004, p. 686) have
been designed to train students for ‘‘Exploratory Talk’’ (Wegerif and Mansour 2010,
p. 332) skills, in which students can ‘‘share knowledge, challenge ideas, evaluate evidence
and consider options in a reasonable and equitable way’’ (Wegerif 2006, p. 148). Similarly,
in the discourse that Webb and Mastergeorge (2003) designed, strategies such as expla-
nation prompts, reciprocal questioning, and role specialisation are used to scaffold the
process of requesting for explanations and receiving explanations to promote their social
behaviours in collaborative learning.
To solve a problem jointly, students need critical skills to plan, organize, analyse, and
evaluate their group work (Dawes et al. 2003; Wood et al. 1976). These skills are usually
beyond their unassisted efforts and need to be developed during the learning process.
Therefore, the provision of a scaffold is required to enable students to execute a joint task.
Typically, the intervention designed to support the cognitive strategy and related skills of
problem solving is a form of scaffolding infused within the instructional procedure (Hogan
1999; Ge and Land 2003; Argelagós and Pifarré 2012). For example, the intervention that
Hogan (1999) designed for a science lesson is in the form of a tutorial process. Similar
designs can be found in Jonassen (1997) and in the subsequent studies by Jonassen (2003).
In Argelagós and Pifarré’s study (2012), the intervention was embedded in an authentic
web-based problem-solving process. Most of the studies conducted were intended to design
the intervention as a kind of scaffolding in the forms of tutoring or expert modelling (Wood
Framework designed to develop the collaborative problem-solving skills 145
123

4. et al. 1976; Pedersen and Liu 2003), supportive techniques or ICT tools (Ge and Land
2004; Belland et al. 2011; Weinberger et al. 2007; Lee and Nelson 2005). For example,
Pedersen and Liu (2003) designed an expert modelling as intervention, in which experts
‘‘thought aloud’’ (p. 305) while giving tips and examples to provide support for problem
solvers. Scaffolds in the forms of techniques can be found in the studies of Ge and Land
(2003, 2004), in which the techniques of question prompts and peer interactions were
combined to support the cognitive and metacognitive requirements in the problem-solving
process.
Computer-based scaffolds have been widely used in the intervention studies. For
instance, Lee and Nelson (2005) introduced concept mapping to help problem solvers
externalise their representation of knowledge. Kim and Hannafin (2011) summarised the
ICT tools that can help students explore problems, generate and justify their conclusions.
And the development of skills can be measured by using an integrated ICT tool as in
(Pirnay-Dummer et al. 2010). Web-based ICT system to structure the inquiry processes has
also been discussed by Stegmann and colleagues (2007), Argelagós and Pifarré (2012), and
Raes et al. (2012).
Design of intervention framework
In this study, we designed the intervention framework by combining the strategies in the
abovementioned foundations. The strategies were focused on developing social interaction
skills through a series of talk activities and on developing problem-solving skills by
scaffolding students to plan, organise, and evaluate their joint task. In addition, ICT tools
were used as cognitive scaffolds and joint learning spaces. The intervention framework is
summarized in Table 1, with details followed afterwards.
Setting up rules for discourse was dedicated to the social skills that students needed in
order to engage in reflective social discourse and deep cognitive processing. This inter-
vention was designed by establishing group discourse rules and including the rules in group
discourse activities. Eight rules were adapted from previous studies (e.g., Dawes 2004;
Wegerif and Mansour 2010). The eight rules included: (1) Sharing information or
knowledge with a group member; (2) Asking everyone to express his/her viewpoint; (3)
Table 1 The design of the intervention framework
Intervention Purpose Strategies and ICT tools
Setting up rules
for discourse
Students learn to establish the ground
rules and obtain the basic skills for
group discourse
Preparation module including eight ground
rules; talk activities and materials;
question prompts
Making group
plans for
solving
problems
Students learn to make the group plan for
the whole problem-solving process
Planning template using Mindmap;
question prompts
Structuring
evidence-
based
arguments
Students learn to establish the habit of
using evidence-based statements and
arguments and to arrive at reasonable
decisions from a variety of solutions
Preparation module including group
activities to help students (a) make
claims, (b) provide evidence, and
(c) provide the source of evidence;
Wikispaces; question prompts
146 X. Gu et al.
123

5. Listening to everyone’s opinion; (4) Providing feedback on each other’s ideas; (5) Pro-
viding reasons and evidence for what we say; (6) Working together to determine the
solution; (7) Negotiating to deal with disagreements; and (8) Implementing the solution
when all members agree. Students were introduced to the eight rules. They were asked to
discuss and give reasons for adopting respective rules. They then adopted the rules. The
students were reminded of these rules throughout their group problem-solving process.
Making group plans for solving problems was to help students develop cognitive and
meta-cognitive skills in solving problems. Students were prompted to follow a science
inquiry activity to understand how to solve a problem with peers. A template using an ICT
tool, Mindmap was designed to scaffold students to make a group plan that included the
following sections: problem interpretation, roles of group members, goals, new knowledge
and tools needed, timetable, procedure and stages, and possible challenges (Jonassen
1997). The intervention also included question prompts such as ‘‘What is your problem
now?’’ It was hoped that through the intervention, the students would better understand
how to adjust, control, and evaluate the problem-solving process.
Structuring evidence-based arguments was designed to scaffold the development of
convincing argument skills that were essential for problem solving and for scientific rea-
soning (Keys and Bryan 2001; Belland et al. 2011). By structuring the evidence-based
argumentation into (a) claim, (b) evidence, and (c) source of evidence, students were
guided to make their points by identifying various opinions, formulating ideas and beliefs,
making judgments and evaluations, selecting a preferred solution, and offering evidence
and reasons (Cho and Jonassen 2002; Voss et al. 1991).
This intervention was first introduced in the preparation module through a series of
group activities. For example, in a debate by a group on the topic ‘‘Is winter a beautiful
season?’’ each group chose a claim, identified evidence and reasons to support it, and
explained the source of the evidence. This structured argumentation was also carried out in
the problem-solving process when students worked together to solve the assigned problem.
A Wikispaces co-editing platform was used as the joint group space for the members to
share ideas, present claims and evidence, and track their evidence-based arguments.
A variety of strategies and ICT tools were used to facilitate the intervention. These
included a preparation module introduced to the students at the beginning of the problem-
solving process, ICT tools, and question prompts. The preparation module included ground
rules, structured argumentation practice materials and question prompts. ICT tools such as
Mindmap and Wikispaces were provided for the students to conduct their group work. The
most important strategies of all were the question prompts. Question prompts were
designed to facilitate cognitive and meta-cognitive skills and help students to focus on the
key factors of problem solving such as high-level thinking and organisation, planning, and
monitoring of the problem-solving process (Ge and Land 2003, 2004; Raes et al. 2012).
Three types of question prompts were used: (a) elaboration prompts that would help
students express and explain ideas, such as ‘‘What are the factors involved in this prob-
lem?’’ (b) reflection prompts that would help students reflect on the validity of the
information, solution, and problem-solving process, such as ‘‘What are the strengths and
weaknesses of the selected method?’’ and (c) argumentation prompts that would assist
students in the reasoning process, such as ‘‘Do you have any evidence to support your
ideas?’’ These prompts were nested with other interventions and included in the materials.
They were first introduced in the preparation module when students practised their group
interactions and were then integrated into the scientific inquiry activities.
Framework designed to develop the collaborative problem-solving skills 147
123

6. Methodology
Research questions
This study focused on how to help students develop crucial skills in collaborative problem
solving. The research questions are: (1) What are the impacts of the intervention on
students’ group skills if any? (2) What are the impacts of the intervention on students’
problem-solving skills if any?
Research participants
The study was conducted in two third-grade classes of the KISP project participating
schools which the research team had access to in Shanghai in May 2012. The two science
teachers of these two classes had more than 10 years of science teaching experience and
some experience in problem-solving and group inquiry methods.
Through a raffle draw, one class was assigned as the treatment class (TC) and another
class was assigned as control class (CC). Pre-test was conducted to assess the general
abilities of the students in the two classes, including observation ability, identifying ability
and reasoning ability using Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices (Raven, 1981), which is
a nonverbal group test typically used in educational settings to test reasoning problems
skills. The result showed no significant difference (T = 1.931, P = 0.059 [ 0.05) in
general abilities between the two student groups.
Students in both TC and CC worked in groups to finish the task of detecting air quality,
the design of which will be explained next. There were nine groups in TC and seven groups
in CC. In addition, at the end of the project, four out of the nine TC groups and three out of
the seven CC groups volunteered to participate in the exit activities when they were
provided a different problem to solve and were interviewed of their experiences. There
were 31 students in TC, with 14 boys and 17 girls, while there were 28 students in CC, with
15 boys and 13 girls. They were all between 9 and 11 years old.
Design and procedure
In this study, the project of Air Quality Testing was designed by two science teachers of
these two third-grade classes in collaboration with the research team, which included one
researcher and two research assistants (RAs).
The Air Quality Testing unit was designed as a collaborative problem-solving project
with three stages of inquiry activities. The first stage was to prepare for solving the
problem. Students were asked to solve the basic problem of ‘‘how to test air quality of
different places in school?’’ Based on the preliminary data collected, the second stage was
to solve the problem. Students were asked to solve one of the follow-up problems
including: ‘‘What is the reason of varied air quality?’’ ‘‘How can you identify the sources
of pollution?’’ ‘‘What are the factors that influence air quality?’’ Students needed to
conduct field experiments or find second-hand data to solve the problem. The final stage
was to wrap up their solutions. Students were asked to work out their recommendations and
approaches to improve air quality.
The intervention was included in all the three stages in the TC. The three stages were
implemented in the forms of preparation activities, structured tables, prompts, mind
mapping templates, and Wikispaces. The intervention was discussed with both teachers
148 X. Gu et al.
123

7. and integrated into one version of the project, resulting in two differentiated lesson plans,
one with and another without the intervention.
Afterwards, the teacher with the TC students was assigned to use the lesson plan with
intervention, while the teacher with the CC was assigned to use the lesson plan without
intervention. The teachers were asked to carry out the lesson plans as they were designed.
Each RA worked with only one teacher. The RAs were responsible to conduct observations
and keep records of those observations. The RAs were also responsible to record group
activities on a weekly basis, and help the teachers carry out the designed lesson plans. Each
week, the researcher and RAs met to discuss the records of observations to ensure that the
rating of the observations were consistent between the groups. Table 2 provides details of
the activities carried out in the two groups based on the two lesson plans. The TC students
were provided guidance on group and problem-solving skills from their teacher, while the
CC students only received guidance on the content of the problems from their teacher.
As displayed in Table 2 above, both TC and CC groups went through the three project
phases of preparing, problem solving, and wrapping-up as indicated above. In addition, the
interventions were implemented in the TC along with the three project stages: during stage
one, TC students were introduced to the intervention activities including setting up ground
rules for group discourse and learning to structure evidence-based arguments. These
interventions were carried out through discussions and question prompts. During stage two,
TC students were provided Mindmap, Wikispaces, templates, and question prompts in
making group plans. During stage three, TC students were reminded of rules for group
discourse and were prompted to elaborate, reflect, and make evidence-based arguments. In
comparison, the CC students were asked to solve the same problems in groups without
interventions mentioned above. The lesson plans of the Air Quality Testing unit with and
without intervention, that is, the TC and CC designs, were implemented at the same time.
Once the project started, the two teachers were only involved in guiding the students to
solve the problem based on the designed lesson plans and processes. They were not
involved in the research. Instead, all the research activities, which included surveys, rated
Table 2 ‘‘Air Quality Testing’’ Project: Comparison of lesson plans implemented between the treatment
class (TC) and control class (CC)
Project
phases
Activities carried out by the students, as guided by the
teachers
TC
(9 groups)
CC
(7 groups)
Phase 1 (2 weeks) Prepare to solve the problem: How to test air quality of
different places in school?
Yes Yes
Set up group rules; learn to structure evidence-based
arguments through discussions and question prompts
Yes No
Phase 2 (4 weeks) Solve the problem: What is the reason of varied air quality?
How can you identify the sources of pollution? What are
the factors that influence air quality?
Yes Yes
Make group plans using Mindmap, Wikispaces, template,
and question prompts
Yes No
Phase 3 (2 weeks) Wrap up solutions: Work out recommendations and
approaches to improve air quality
Yes Yes
Reminded of rules for group discourse and prompted to
elaborate, reflect, and make evidence-based arguments
Yes No
Framework designed to develop the collaborative problem-solving skills 149
123

8. observations, interviews, and data analyses were conducted by the researcher and the two
RAs.
Data collection, measurement, and analysis
This study employed a mixed-method design. A comparative, quantitative measurement
was used to examine the relationships between the intervention and the skill acquisition.
Student group skills were assessed by rated observations of the students’ behaviours and
survey results. Students’ problem-solving skills were explored through classroom obser-
vations, transfer ability observations, and group interviews. The observation and rating
were conducted at the group level, that is, all the students within a group received the same
group score. The records of the group activities that the RAs kept were used as the main
source of rating. The two RAs independently rated the observations of the two classes after
the researcher and the RAs reached agreement on the definitions and rating rules, and
confirmed a reliability of 90 %.
Students’ group skills were measured by observations of the students’ group behaviours
and student perception surveys. The observations were used to analyse the group behav-
iours. The group discourse rules were used as the protocol of the observations. A rating
scheme was developed with a four-point scale (‘‘strongly positive = 4’’ to ‘‘strongly
negative = 1’’) to measure each of the eight skills accordingly (details can be found in
Table 3). The record of the observations was first transcribed and then rated by the two
RAs independently according to the scheme with an inter-rater reliability of 0.961. In
addition, the students were asked to rate their personal behaviours and their group
behaviours on a five-point scale.
Problem-solving skills were measured by inquiry results, students’ self-evaluation on
the results and methods, and observations of problem-solving transfer abilities. The stu-
dents’ problem-solving plans and the observations of their evidence-based argumentation
were collected as data of the inquiry results. The structures of the problem-solving plan and
evidence-based argumentation, which included representing problem, developing solution,
and making justification based on Cho and Jonassen (2002) and Voss and his colleagues’
Table 3 Rated observations of students’ group skills between TC and CC groups
Measures TC (n = 31) CC (n = 27) T-test
M SD M SD T
value
P
value
Rule 1: Sharing information or knowledge with a group
member
3.750 0.676 2.500 1.433 3.584 0.001
Rule 2: Asking everyone to express his/her viewpoint 2.233 1.477 0.462 0.939 7.674 0.001
Rule 3: Listening to everyone’s opinion 2.789 1.638 1.478 1.836 4.452 0.001
Rule 4: Providing feedback on each other’s ideas 3.515 0.932 2.773 1.568 2.825 0.006
Rule 5: Providing reasons and evidence for what we say 3.189 1.143 2.722 1.597 1.57 0.122
Rule 6: Working together to determine the solution 2.378 1.037 1.533 1.456 2.676 0.010
Rule 7: Negotiating to deal with disagreements 3.000 1.180 0.880 1.166 6.326 0.001
Rule 8: Implementing the solution when all members
agree
2.360 1.206 2.530 1.187 0.358 0.724
150 X. Gu et al.
123

9. work (1991), were used as indicators to develop the rating schemes with a four-point scale
(‘‘strongly positive = 4’’ to ‘‘strongly negative = 1’’). The observations of students’
evidence-based argumentation and their problem-solving plan were first transcribed and
then independently rated by the two RAs, with an inter-rater reliability of 0.869.
The transfer ability of the problem-solving skills was measured using this same scale.
At the exit activities, volunteered TC and CC students were provided with a new problem
to solve, which was: ‘‘How to compare the air quality between Shanghai and Canada?’’
The students’ group interactions were recorded, transcribed and analysed. Each group
session was chaired by one of the RAs and lasted for 25–40 min which resulted in a
255-min recording in total.
A semi-structured interview protocol was used for the group exit interviews. Students
were asked to look back at their problem solving processes, and reflect their team work
experiences. Sample interview questions included: ‘‘Did your group accomplish the
tasks?’’ ‘‘How satisfied are you with the results?’’ ‘‘Have you had conflicts with peers and
if yes, how did you solve it?’’ Students were also asked to self-evaluate their performance
in the problem-solving results on a five-point scale. The interview sessions were recorded,
transcribed and analysed so as to triangular the results from rated observations and self-
rating data.
Findings
The findings are presented in two parts: group skills manifested by the rating results of
students’ behaviours in group interactions and their perceptions of their group work, and
problem-solving skills manifested by students’ testing results, self-evaluations on the
results, and the transfer ability of problem solving. The results, except where annotated as
the individual level, were analyzed on at the group level.
Findings on group skills
Data for measuring the students’ group skills came from (1) rating of observations on the
students’ group behaviours based on the eight discourse rules; (2) surveys filled out by the
students’ on their own group behaviours; and (3) exit interviews with students from both
TC and CC groups.
Rated observations
Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics and T test of group skills; the mean and standard
deviation for each measure are shown for both TC and CC groups.
Students’ group skills in TC and CC demonstrated differently based on the eight group
rules. The results of the independent samples T-test (Table 3) indicated that TC groups had
outstanding performance in most of the eight rules except for rules 5 and 8. TC groups
were more willing (T = 3.584, P = 0.001 0.05) to share information and knowledge
with their peers (M = 3.75) than their counterparts in CC (M = 2.5) (Rule 1). Compared
with those in CC (M = 0.462), students in TC (M = 2.233) were significantly more active
in requesting comments from each member to ensure that everyone participated in the
group work (T = 7.674, P 0.001) (Rule 2). Moreover, TC performed better than CC in
listening to their peers (T = 4.452, P 0.001) (Rule 3). TC were significantly more active
than CC students in providing positive feedback and making comments and
Framework designed to develop the collaborative problem-solving skills 151
123

10. recommendations to their peers (T = 2.825, P = 0.006 0.05) (Rule 4). Regarding the
group skills of working together to determine the solution (Rule 6) and negotiating to deal
with disagreements (Rule 7), TC groups also performed significantly better than those in
CC (T = 2.676, P = 0.010 0.05; T = 6.326, P 0.001).
However, no significant difference existed in the group skills of providing reasons and
evidence for what we say (Rule 5) or implementing the solution when all members agree
(Rule 8) (T = 1.57, P = 0.122 [ 0.05; T = 0.358, P = 0.724 [ 0.05) between TC and
CC students. Neither TC nor CC students performed well in these group rules.
Students’ perceptions of own and group performances from the surveys
The independent samples T-test revealed significant differences between the TC and CC
students in their perceptions for their group performance and self-engagement in group
work. TC students rated both their group performance and their own engagement signif-
icantly higher than CC students did. Table 4 displays the descriptive statistics.
Perceptions of group work through interviews
Similarly, a more active and ordered group interaction was observed in TC groups com-
pared to CC based on the group interviews. The better group interaction performance is
demonstrated by the following interview excerpt:
Interviewer: How many stars will you score your group, including how you are
satisfied with the inquiry result and process and how you have solved your problems,
with ‘5 stars’ representing the highest?
A/B/C/D: (speaking at the same time) Five stars, four stars.
A: Stop it! Speak out one at a time. People who scored ‘4 stars’ speak first.
B: (Scored 4 stars) I think our problem has not been solved, and we’ve not got much
(findings).
C: (Scored 4 stars) It’s my turn to speak. (Note: A and D also said ‘I also want to
speak.’ A mentioned ‘Group leader first’, then C as the group leader spoke). Because
our problem was solved only with the help of our Teacher Zhu.
D: (Scored 5 stars) I want to speak (A also said ‘I also want to speak.’ Then C
gestured that A is not to speak for ‘this round of sequence’). Although there were
certain (small) problems that we did not solve, we did figure out many problems. I
was not satisfied with the fact that we found less than the other groups.
A: (Scored 5 stars) I disagree because… because… (C gave a complement: ‘Teacher
Zhu’s corridor was very clean…’) Yeah. Because Teacher Zhu’s corridor was very
clean and swept every day. And very few people walk there.
Table 4 Students’ perceptions of their own and their group performances between TC and CC groups
Measures TC (n = 31) CC (n = 27) T-test
M SD M SD T value P value
Perception of group performance 4.67 0.500 3.45 0.522 5.262 0.001
Perception of self-participation in group 4.67 0.500 3.00 1.183 3.933 0.001
152 X. Gu et al.
123

11. C: Yes, very few. Normally, three or four people (every day).
Interviewer: What’s your score after the discussion?
A/B/C/D: Five stars.
As shown in this excerpt, the discourse was orderly, with all four members actively
participating in the disagreement about the score. Everyone expressed themselves and
listened to the others’ viewpoints. Student A’s strong sense of using the dialogue rules to
facilitate the discussion was reflected. A distinct sense of providing reasons and evidence
for their points was also displayed. Moreover, some TC groups even developed routine
solutions, such as voting for a solution to a disagreement. Conversely, CC groups exhibited
some unreasonable ways of dealing with disagreements, such as raising their voices and
interrupting others.
In the group interviews, almost all TC students clearly recalled their responsibilities in
completing the tasks in their groups and generally felt more satisfied with their perfor-
mance than CC groups. For example, one TC student said, ‘I was responsible for recording
because I write fast’. Another said, ‘I was mainly in charge of reports and explanations
because my language skills are better’. The students who confessed that they were not fully
involved in the task were all from CC groups.
Problem-solving skills
Problem-solving skills were measured by inquiry results, students’ self-evaluation on the
results and methods, and transfer ability of problem-solving skill.
General results of the problem-solving skills from observations and interviews
Table 5 presents the descriptive statistics and T-test of the problem-solving skills as
measured by the students’ behaviours manifested by problem representation, developing
Table 5 Comparison of students’ problem-solving skills between TC and CC
Source of measures Measures TC
(n = 31)
CC
(n = 27)
T test
M SD M SD T
value
P
value
Representing problem Interpreting the problem 3.67 0.816 2.67 1.033 1.861 0.092
Identifying relevant information 3 1.095 2.67 1.033 0.542 0.599
Developing solution Developing solutions 2.67 1.033 2 0.00 1.581 0.145
Making a plan 4 0.00 0.33 0.816 11 0.001
Providing evidence/reason for
solutions
2.67 1.033 2.33 1.506 0.447 0.664
Providing alternative solutions 1 1.095 0.33 0.816 1.195 0.26
Making justification Making a claim 4 0.00 3.67 0.816 1 0.341
Providing evidence for the
claim
4 0.00 2.67 1.033 3.162 0.01
Providing source of the
evidence
1.67 1.506 0 0.00 2.712 0.022
Perception of problem
solving
Perception of their problem-
solving results
4.8 0.447 4 1.414 0.784 0.568
Framework designed to develop the collaborative problem-solving skills 153
123

12. solution, and making justification, and their perception of problem solving. The mean and
standard deviation for each measure are shown for both TC and CC groups. In general, TC
groups have better actual performance in the problem-solving skills and a higher per-
ception of their problem-solving results than CC.
The problem-solving skills of TC and CC groups differed significantly, which were
mainly manifested in making a plan, providing evidence for the claim, and providing the
source of the evidence. In these three indicators, TC performed significantly better than CC
(with T = 11, P = 0.00 0.05; T = 3.162, P = 0.001 0.05; T = 2.712,
P = 0.022 0.05, respectively). However, the other indicators did not exhibit significant
differences between TC and CC groups, although all TC scored higher than CC. There was
also no significant difference in representing problem skill (T = 1.861, P = 0.092 and
T = 0.542, P = 0.599) between TC and CC groups.
The rating of observations and the students’ interviews revealed that both TC and CC
students were able to understand the problems and identify most of the key information
necessary to solve the problems. However, a significant difference was observed at the
plan-making stage between TC and CC. TC groups had a more in-depth understanding of
the problem and had a more detailed plan for solving the problem. All TC groups made
their plans and had the process, time, and their responsibilities in place. In contrast, the CC
groups had poorly-designed plans, which were difficult to implement. For instance, the
division of roles within the groups was not clearly defined; as a result, some individuals
forgot to participate in the whole task. During the students’ interviews, TC students
believed that the plan played an important role, especially in the division of labour and
modelling of the task steps.
In addition, TC groups demonstrated a stronger sense of providing evidence for the
statements that they made. Only the TC groups mentioned the evidence source. This
difference was manifested in the following excerpt:
Claims from TC (with evidence and source of evidence):
I think this way of air-testing is poor because some naughty child may try to tear it
up, and if it rains, it may be soaked. Our first paper tape was soaked by the storm.
Claims from CC (without evidence):
I think air quality within the school is influenced by the outside air. If air quality
outside is not good, then the air in the school will not be good as well.
As the excerpt indicated, TC groups focused on making clear claims as well as pro-
viding evidence for the claim and the source of the evidence. Although CC groups made
claims and provided some evidence, they demonstrated lower awareness of providing
evidence and lower quality of the evidence. None of them thought to mention the source of
evidence.
There was no significance in perceptions of problem-solving between TC (M = 4.8)
and CC (M = 4.0) groups (T = 0.748, P = 0.568). The students’ interviews showed that
the TC were most satisfied with their data collection process and group coordination,
whereas the CC were most satisfied with the data that they collected. Obtaining the
methods to detect air quality was the most important learning perceived by students of both
classes. Additionally, TC students also obtained the preliminary understanding of the plan
and its function, as demonstrated in statements such as: ‘‘A plan helps us get a clear idea of
the things everyone has to do’’ and ‘‘In the future, I will use a plan because it reminds me
of what to do the next.’’
154 X. Gu et al.
123

13. Transfer ability of problem solving skills
At the end of the project, four TC groups and three CC groups volunteered to participate in
another activity, in which they compared the air qualities between Shanghai and Canada.
This activity was designed to examine the students’ transfer abilities for collaborative
problem-solving skills. Among the groups that participated, three out of four from TC
came up solutions, whereas only one group out of three from CC arrived at a solution for
the new problem.
The transfer ability of problem solving was manifested by how the new problem was
presented and if a reasonable solution could be developed for the new problem. In terms of
the skills to present the problem, TC groups showed a higher transfer ability of interpreting
the new problem and of identifying the relevant information in solving the problem
(T = 6.708, P = 0.001 0.05). In terms of the skill of developing solutions, the transfer
ability was demonstrated in the TC groups’ plans. The TC groups also demonstrated higher
reasoning skills for their plans than those in the CC groups (T = 6.025,
P = 0.001 0.05). The differences in the performance of problem interpretation and draft
solution between TC and CC are reflected in the following excerpt:
Solution from TC: We think that the place to be tested in Canada should be similar to
ours, and the weather should also be almost the same … We will send emails with
procedure and tools (for air quality detection) to students in Canada. We will also
include a daily schedule and the date of detection. And before that, we should allot
one or two weeks to detect air quality. We should communicate with them (students
in Canada) in advance, (because) we should listen to the ideas of both sides and agree
on both. Then we start detecting and sharing the results from both sides on the
website….
Solution from CC: We make friends with the students in Canada and let them detect
air quality as well after the period of the allotted time for comparison. Or we can
invite them to watch TV for (reports of) the air quality.
In their problem interpretations, TC members recognised important information such as
location, time, methods and weather/season. The draft solutions to the new problem of TC
groups were more reasonable, and they included evidence. However, neither of the classes
performed well in providing alternative solutions to the new problem.
Discussion
Collaborative and problem-based learning is emerging in the field of learning sciences and
in the current context of telecollaboration scenarios in KISP. Thus, it is important to equip
students with the skills crucial in this creative learning environment. In this study, we
designed an intervention framework dedicated to develop students’ collaborative problem-
solving skills in a classroom setting and provide students with appropriate training for
effective group dynamics and problem solving. The findings in this phase of intervention
design are important to understand how to prepare students for collaborative inquiries.
In summary, the findings showed that the intervention was partially effective in
developing group and problem-solving skills in students. The findings indicated that the
TC students were better than CC students in group discourse by using ground rules
effectively and in problem-solving by making plans and making evidence-based argu-
ments. TC students also showed that they were able to transfer their group and problem-
Framework designed to develop the collaborative problem-solving skills 155
123

14. solving skills in a new context. However, the TC students failed to demonstrate that they
were better at representing the problem or preparing alternative solutions. In terms of the
group skills, students gained mainly through the intervention of ‘‘setting up rules for
discourse’’ and the strategy of ‘‘question prompts.’’ There were significant differences
between the students who received and those who did not receive the intervention. This
finding is in accordance with the talk strategy design (e.g., Dawes 2004; Wegerif and
Mansour 2010; Stegmann et al. 2007; Kershner et al. 2012), which indicates that modelling
talk activities is valuable in developing group skills including sharing, active participation,
positive mutual support, and intentional negotiation. This finding also supports the strat-
egies and techniques designed as intervention to support collaboration and problem solving
(Webb and Mastergeorge 2003; Ge and Land 2003, 2004; Lee and Nelson 2005). Although
the intervention was successful in honing most of the group skills, two out of the eight
indicators did not reveal significant effects on the TC student groups. That is, neither of the
groups, TC or CC student groups did well in ‘‘providing reasons and evidence for what we
say’’ or in ‘‘implementing the solution when all members agreed.’’ This may be because
these students were more used to be given the correct answers than to provide reasons or
evidences themselves for what they believed to be true in schools. As a result, it was also
difficult for them to implement new solutions agreed upon by all the members in a group.
Therefore, in future interventions, more preparations and scaffolding will be necessary to
help students to think out of box and create new solutions for problems.
In terms of the problem-solving skills, students gained mainly through the intervention
of ‘‘making group plans for solving problems,’’ ‘‘structuring evidence-based argument,’’
and the strategy of ‘‘question prompts.’’ These results confirm the value of prompts (Ge
and Land 2003, 2004), scaffolding the cognitive and meta-cognitive skills in interpreting
problems by making a plan (Jonassen 1997), and the Mindmap template in helping students
execute the plan-making process (Lee and Nelson 2005). The results also document that
structuring evidence-based argumentation is an essential component of problem-solving
and it provides cognitive and metacognitive strategies for students and helps students
develop a new skill of reasonable argumentation.
Meanwhile, the intervention was only partially effective in developing problem-solving
skills in students. The results failed to show a significant effect on some indicators. For
instance, students who received intervention did not score significantly higher in repre-
senting the problem than students who did not receive the intervention, nor did they score
higher in providing reasons for solutions or providing alternative solutions. One possible
explanation may be that the students’ prior knowledge affects the scaffolding effect of
problem-solving (Bulu and Pedersen 2012). In order to represent the problem or to provide
reasons for the solutions, the students would need to have prior domain-specific knowl-
edge. Such a need has been indicated in Raes et al. (2012), who argued that when the
domain-specific knowledge was involved, a combined intervention including teacher-
enhanced scaffolding would be more effective. The skills of representing the problem to be
solved, including interpreting the problem and identifying necessary information to be
used, depend largely on the domain knowledge. This aspect regarding domain knowledge
needs to be incorporated in future intervention and research designs. Both TC and CC
performed poorly in preparing alternative solutions. Thus, further studies need to be
conducted on developing these skills.
156 X. Gu et al.
123

15. Conclusion
A limitation of the study is that the TC and CC groups were led by two different teachers.
Although their lesson plans were pre-planned, their personal teaching styles might have
some impact on the students’ attitudes and performances. However, based on the results
from multiple resources, we could still safely conclude that in general, the intervention
helped the TC students improve their collaboration and problem-solving skills. This
finding echoes that of Blatchford et al. (2007) in that adequate training for effective group
dynamics is one of the key factors of successful collaborative learning. Another limitation
is the convenience sample we had for the study. For this study, we examined the trans-
ferability of the skills by asking the same TC and CC student groups to solve another
problem without interventions. Our results showed that the TC student groups were able to
use or transfer their previously learned skills in solving the new problem. Such a finding,
however, might not be generalizable across all the KISP students.
This study contributed to the current literature by integrating intervention strategies
addressing social interaction of collaborative learning and intervention strategies
addressing cognitive, metacognitive, and strategic support of problem-solving in the school
context. In addition, the study further documented the importance of setting up rules for
discourse and scaffolding problem solving process in school settings in preparing skills
required for collaborative problem-solving. Last but not the least, the study provided new
insights into further strategies necessary to help students obtain collaborative problem-
solving skills.
Acknowledgments This study is supported by Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University
(NCET) and partly supported by KISP, UNESCO Bangkok. We would like to acknowledge the teachers and
students who participated in this study at the two schools in Shanghai.
References
Argelagós, E., Pifarré, M. (2012). Improving information problem solving skills in secondary education
through embedded instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 515–526.
Belland, B. R., Glazewski, K. D., Richardson, J. C. (2011). Problem-based learning and argumentation:
Testing a scaffolding framework to support middle school students’ creation of evidence-based
arguments. Instructional Science, 39(5), 667–694.
Blatchford, P., Kutnick, P., Baines, E. (2007). Pupil grouping for learning in classrooms: Results from the
UK SPRinG Study. Paper presented at symposium ‘International Perspectives on Effective Groupwork:
Theory, Evidence and Implications’, American Educational Research Annual Meeting, Chicago, April
2007.
Bulu, S. T., Pedersen, S. (2012). Supporting problem-solving performance in a hypermedia learning
environment: The role of students’ prior knowledge and metacognitive skills. Computers in Human
Behavior, 28(4), 1162–1169.
Caballé, S., Daradoumis, T., Xhafa, F., Juan, A. (2011). Providing effective feedback, monitoring and
evaluation to on-line collaborative learning discussions. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(4),
1372–1381.
Cho, K. L., Jonassen, D. H. (2002). The effects of argumentation scaffolds on argumentation and problem
solving. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 5–22.
Cortez, C., Nussbaum, M., Woywood, G., Aravena, R. (2009). Learning to collaborate by collaborating: a
face-to-face collaborative activity for measuring and learning basics about teamwork1. Journal of
Computer Assisted learning, 25(2), 126–142.
Dawes, L. (2004). Research report: Talk and learning in classroom science. International Journal of Science
Education, 26(6), 677–695.
Dawes, L., Mercer, N., Wegerif, R. (2003). Thinking together: A programme of activities for developing
speaking, listening and thinking skills for children aged 8-11. Birmingham: Imaginative Minds.
Framework designed to develop the collaborative problem-solving skills 157
123

16. Ge, X., Land, S. M. (2003). Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task
using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and Development,
51(1), 21–38.
Ge, X., Land, S. M. (2004). A conceptual framework for scaffolding III-structured problem-solving
processes using question prompts and peer interactions. Educational Technology Research and
Development, 52(2), 5–22.
Hogan, K. (1999). Thinking aloud together: A test of an intervention to foster students’ collaborative
scientific reasoning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(10), 1085–1109.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. (1975). Learning together and alone: Cooperation, competition, and
individualization. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and III-structured problem-solving
learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65–94.
Jonassen, D. H. (2003). Designing research-based instruction for story problems. Educational Psychology
Review, 15(3), 267–296.
Karakostas, A., Demetriadis, S. (2011). Enhancing collaborative learning through dynamic forms of
support: the impact of an adaptive domain-specific support strategy. Journal of Computer Assisted
learning, 27(3), 243–258.
Kershner, R, Warwick, P., Mercer, M., Staarman, J. K. (2012). Primary children’s management of
themselves and others in collaborative group work: ‘Sometimes it takes patience …’. Education 3–13:
International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 42(2), 201–216.
Keys, C. W., Bryan, L. A. (2001). Co-constructing inquiry-based science with teachers: Essential research
for lasting reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(6), 631–645.
Kim, M. C., Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning
environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers Education, 56(2),
403–417.
Lee, Y., Nelson, D. W. (2005). Design of a cognitive tool to enhance problem-solving performance.
Education Media International, 42(1), 3–18.
Pedersen, S., Liu, M. (2003). The transfer of problem-solving skills from a problem-based learning
environment: The effect of modeling an expert’s cognitive processes. Journal of Research on Tech-
nology in Education, 35(2), 303–320.
Pirnay-Dummer, P., Ifenthaler, D., Spector, J. M. (2010). Highly integrated model assessment technology
and tools. Education Technology Research and Development., 58, 3–18.
Raes, A., Schellens, T., De Wever, B., Vanderhoven, E. (2012). Scaffolding information problem solving
in web-based collaborative inquiry learning. Computers Education, 59(1), 82–94.
Raven, J. (1981). Manual for raven’s progressive matrices and vocabulary scales. San Antonio: Harcourt
Assessment.
Rummel, N., Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting problem-
solving in computer-mediated settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 201–241.
Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., Lamon, M. (1994). The CSILE Project: Trying to bring the classroom into
World 3. In K. McGilly (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice
(pp. 201–228). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Slavin, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: Best-evidence
synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57, 293–336.
Stegmann, K., Weinberger, A., Fischer, F. (2007). Facilitating argumentative knowledge construction
with computer-supported collaboration scripts. International Journal of Computer-Supported Col-
laborative Learning, 2(4), 421–447.
Voss, J. F., Wolfe, C. R., Lawrence, J. A., Engle, R. A. (1991). From representation to decision: An
analysis of problem solving in international relations. Complex Problem Solving: Principles and
Mechanisms, 119–158.
Vye, N. J., Goldman, S. R., Voss, J. F., Hmelo, C. E., Williams, S. M., Cognition, and Technology Group
at v. (1998). Complex mathematical problem solving by individuals and dyads. Cognition and
Instruction, 15(4), 435–484.
Wang, T. (2002). Discussion on the basic concept of cooperative learning. Educational Research, 2002(2),
68–72 (in Chinese).
Wang, T., Gao, Y. (1996). New Probe into the trend of modern teaching method reform. Educational
Research, 1996(8), 66–69 (in Chinese).
Webb, N., Mastergeorge, A. (2003). Promoting effective helping behaviour in peer-directed groups.
International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1), 73–97.
Wegerif, R. (2006). A dialogic understanding of the relationship between CSCL and teaching thinking skills.
International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 1(1), 143.
158 X. Gu et al.
123

17. Wegerif, R., Mansour, N. (2010). A dialogic approach to technology-enhanced education for the global
knowledge society. In M. S. Khine I. M. Saleh (Eds.), New Science of Learning (pp. 325–339). New
York: Springer.
Weinberger, A., Stegmann, K., Fischer, F., Mandl, H. (2007). Scripting argumentative knowledge con-
struction in computer-supported learning environments. In F. Fischer, I. Kollar, H. Mandl, J.
M. Haake (Eds.), Scripting computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 191–212). New York:
Springer.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.
Yan, Y., Cheng, Z. (2007). Reflections on the deviation of cooperative learning in practice. Basic
Education Research, 2007(5), 21–23 (in Chinese).
Xiaoqing Gu is now a professor of Educational Technology in School of Educational Science, East China
Normal University, China. Her main research interests are learning science, learning design and CSCL.
Shan Chen is research assistant working in the Educational Technology Lab, East China Normal
University.
Wenbo Zhu is research assistant working in the Educational Technology Lab, East China Normal
University.
Lin Lin is an Associate Professor of Learning Technologies at University of North Texas. Her research
interest lies at the intersection of new media and technologies, cognitive psychology, and education.
Framework designed to develop the collaborative problem-solving skills 159
123