0.903
IF
1.06
CiteScore
0.510
SJR
1.062
SNIP
Research paper
 
CC-BY 4.0
 
 

Collaborative Problem-Solving Behavior of 15-Year-Old Taiwanese Students in Science Education

Cheng-Hsuan Li 1  ,  
 
1
Graduate Institute of Educational Information and Measurement, National Taichung University of Education, TAIWAN
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2017;13(10):6677–6695
Online publish date: 2017-10-03
Publish date: 2017-10-03
KEYWORDS:
ABSTRACT:
Collaborative problem solving (CPS) is a crucial skill for students and people entering the workforce. Hence, an online CPS assessment system was developed for the Programme for International Student Assessment to test 12 CPS skills. This study compared the CPS skills of students on the basis of a CPS assessment developed for science scenarios in Taiwan. Moreover, a sequential analysis was applied to explore the behavioral patterns of students with CPS skills. The results demonstrated that most Taiwanese students are proficient in the 11 CPS skills (except for D3: “Monitoring, providing feedback and adapting the team organisation and roles”), and that female students are significantly more proficient than male students. The results also indicated that most students can successfully transition between CPS skills. However, the students in a given class may demonstrate a lack of behavioral patterns. Teachers can design activities and develop strategies to address this lack of behavioral patterns and thus increase students’ CPS skills and behavioral patterns.
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR:
Cheng-Hsuan Li   
Graduate Institute of Educational Information and Measurement, National Taichung University of Education, Taiwan
 
REFERENCES (48):
1. Baines, E., Blatchford, P., & Kutnick, P. (2003). Changes in grouping practice over primary and secondary school. International Journal of Educational Research. 39, 9-34.
2. Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (1195). Analyzing Interation; Sequential analysis with SDIS and GSEQ. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
3. Brannick, M. T., & Prince, C. (1997) An overview of team performance measurement. In M. T. Brannick, E. Salas, & C. Prince (Eds.), Team performance assessment and measurement: Theory methods and applications (pp. 3-16). Mahwah, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
4. Browne, N. & Ross, C. (1991). Girls’ stuff, boys’ stuff: Young children talking and playing. In N. Browne (Ed.), Science and technology in the early years. Buckingham: Open University Press.
5. Cheng, K. H., & Hou, H. T. (2015). Exploring students’ behavioural patterns during online peer assessment form the affective, cognitive, and metacognitive perspectives: a progressive sequential analysis, Technology, Pedagogy, and Education, 24(2), 171-188.
6. Coleman, E. (1998). Using explanatory knowledge during collaborative problem solving in science. Journal of Learning Sciences, 7, 387-427.
7. De Vellis, R.F. (1991). Scale Development: theory and applications. Newbury Park: Sage.
8. Duschl, R., & Osborne, J. (2002). Supporting and promoting argumentation discourse. Studies in Science Education, 38, 39-72.
9. Fiore, S. M., Rosen, M., Salas, E., Burke, S., & Jentsch, F. (2008). Processes in complex team problem solving: Parsing and defining the theoretical problem space. In M. Letsky, N. Warner, S. M. Fiore, & C. Smith (Eds.). Macrocognition in Teams: Theories and Methodologies. London: Ashgate Publishers.
10. Fiore, S., Rosen, M., Smith-Jentsch, K., Salas, E., Letsky, M. & Warner, N. (2010). Toward an understanding of macrocognition in teams: Predicting process in complex collaborative contexts. The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 53, 203-224.
11. Franklin, S. & A.C. Graesser (1996). “Is it an agent or just a program? A taxonomy for autonomous agents,” Proceedings of the Agent Theories, Architectures, and Languages Workshop, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
12. Funke, J. & Frensch, P. A. (2007). Complex problem solving: The European perspective – 10 years after. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Learning to Solve Complex Scientific Problems (pp. 25–47). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13. Griffin, P., Care, E., & McGaw (2011). The changing role of education and schools. In P. Griffin, B. McGaw, & E. Care (Eds.). Assessment and teaching 21st century skills (pp. 1-15). Heidelberg: Springer.
14. Griffin, P., McGaw, B. & Care, E. (2011). Assessment and teaching 21st century skills. Heidelberg: Springer.
15. Healy, A. F., Buck-Gengler, C. J., Barshi, I., Parker, J. T., Schneider, V. I., Raymond, W. D., LaVoie, N. N., Bowles, A. R., Pauli, P., Fisher, J. A., & Bourne, L. E., Jr. (2002). Optimizing the durability and generalizability of knowledge and skills. In S. P. Shohov (Ed.), Advances in psychology research (Vol. 8, pp. 103-174). Huntington, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
16. Hou, H. T. (2010). Explore the behavioural patterns in project-based learning with online discussion: Quantitative content analysis and progressive sequenctial analysis. Trkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(3), 52-60.
17. Hou, H. T., Chang, K. E., & Sung, Y. T. (2007a). An Analysis of Peer Assessment Online Discussions with Course that uses Project-Based Learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 15(3), 237-251.
18. Hou, H. T., Chang, K. E., & Sung, Y. T. (2007b, July). Analysis of Time-Management Pattern of Interactive Behaviors during Online Project-Based Learning, Paper presented at International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, Nigatta, Japan.
19. Hou, H. T., Chang, K. E., & Sung, Y. T. (2008). Analysis of Problem-Solving Based Online Asynchronous Discussion Pattern. Educational Technology & Society, 11(1), 17-28.
20. Hou, H. T., Chang, K. E., & Sung, Y. T. (2009). Using Bolgs as a Professional Development Tool for Teachers: Analysis of Interaction Behavioral Patterns, Interactive Learning Environments, 17(4), 325-340.
21. Kimbell, R., Stables, K., Wheeler, T., Wosniak, A., & Kelly, V. (1991). The assessment of performance in design and technology: Final report. London: Schools Examination and Assessment Council.
22. Kuo, B.-C. (2014). Teachers’ collaborative problem solving teaching competency project (in Chinese). Retrieved from https://sites.google.com/site/cpswebsite2014/.
23. Kutnick, P. & Blatchford, P. (2013). Effective group-work in Primary school classrooms: the SPRinG approach. Dordrecht: Springer.
24. Lee, A.Y., & Pennington, N. (1993). The effect of experience on a cross-domain transfer of diagnostic skill. Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
25. Li, C. H., Pai, K. C., Kuo, B. C., Lin, Y.N., & Liu, Z. Y. (2015). The development of online Chinese collaborative problem solving tests in science. Proceedings of 2015 International Metting of the Psychometric Society. Beijing, China.
26. Luckin, R., Baines, E., Cukurova, M., & Holmes, W. (2017). Solved! Making the case for collaborative problem-solving. A report for Nesta. Nesta, London, UK.
27. Ma, X. (2008). Within‐School Gender Gaps in Reading, Mathematics, and Science Literacy. Comparative Education Review, 52(3), 437-460.
28. Mayer, R. E. & Wittrock, M. C. (1996). Problem solving transfer. In R. Calfee & R. Berliner (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology (pp. 47–62). New York, NY: Macmillan.
29. Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, Problem solving, Cognition (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Freeman.
30. Millis, K., Forsyth, C., Butler, H., Wallace, P., Graesser, A., & Halpern, D. (2011). Operation ARIES!: A Serious Game for Teaching Scientific Inquiry. In Ma, M., Oikonomou, A., & Jain, L. C. (Eds.), Serious games and edutainment applications, Springer-Verlag, London, UK.
31. Murphy, P. (1997). Gender differences: Messages for science learning. In K. Harnquist and A. Bergen (Eds.), Growing up with science: Developing early understanding of science. London: Jessica Kingsley.
32. National Research Council (2011). Assessing 21st century skills. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
33. O’Neil, H. F., Chuang, S. H., Baker, E. L. (2010). Computer-based feedback for computer-based collaborative problem-solving. In D. Ifenthaler, P. Pirnay-Dummer, N. M. Seel (Eds.), Computer-based diagnostics and systematic analysis of knowledge. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
34. O’Neil, H. F., Chuang, S., & Chung, G. K. W. K. (2003). Issues in the computer- based assessment of collaborative problem solving. Assessment in Education, 10, 361-373.
35. OECD (2013). PISA 2015 Draft collaborative problem solving framework. Retrived from http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collaborative%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf.
36. OECD (2016). PISA 2015 Released Field Trial Cognitive Items. Retrived from.
37. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/PISA2015- Released-FT-Cognitive-Items.pdf.
38. OECD. (2003). The PISA 2003 Assessment Framework: Mathematics, Reading, Science and Problem Solving Knowledge and Skills. Retrived from http://www.oecd.org/edu/preschoolandschool/programmeforinternationalstudentassessmentpisa/33694881.pdf.
39. OECD. (2010). PISA 2012 Field Trial Problem Solving Framework. Retrived from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/8/42/46962005.pdf.
40. Rosen, Y., & Rimor, R. (2012). Teaching and assessing problem solving in online collaborative environment. In R. Hartshorne, T. Heafner, & T. Petty (Eds.), Teacher education programs and online learning tools: Innovations in teacher preparation (pp. 82-97). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
41. Salas, E., Dickenson, T. L., Converse, S. and Tannenbaum, S. I. (1992). Toward an understanding of team performance and training. In R. W. Swezey and E. Salas (Eds), Teams: Their Training and Performance (pp. 3-29). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
42. Salas, E.,Cooke, N.J., & Rosen, M. A. (2008). On teams, teamwork, and team performance: discoveries and developments. Human Factors, 50, 540-548.
43. Schroeder, C.M., Scott, T.P., Tolson, H., Huang, T. & Lee, Y. (2007). A meta-analysis of national research: Effects of teaching strategies on student achievement in science in the United States. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(10), 1436-1460.
44. Sjøberg, S., & Schreiner, C. (2005). How do learners in different cultures relate to science and technology? Results and perspectives from the project ROSE. Asia-Pacific Forum on Science Learning and Teaching, 6(2), 1-17.
45. Webb, N. & Palincsar, A. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In Berliner, D. C. & Calfee, R.C. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. New York: Macmillan.
46. Wiley, J., & Jensen, M.S. (2007). When small problem solving groups are effective: What leads to successful interactions? Symposium conducted at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Text & Discourse, Glasgow, Scotland.
47. Yip, D. Y., Chiu, M. M. & Ho, E. S. C. (2004). Hong Kong student achievement in OECD-PISA study: Gender differences in science content, literacy skills, and test item formats. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 2, 91-106.
48. Ziegler, A. & Heller, K.A. (1997). Attribution retraining for self-related cognitions among women. Gifted and Talented International, 12(1), 36-41.
eISSN:1305-8223
ISSN:1305-8215