Towards effective partnerships in a collaborative problem‐solving task

Background Collaborative learning is recognized as an effective learning tool in the classroom. In order to optimize the collaborative learning experience for children within a collaborative partnership, it is important to understand how to match the children by ability level, and whether assigning roles within these dyads is beneficial or not. Aims The current study investigated the effect of partnering children with different task‐specific abilities and assigning or not assigning helping roles within the dyads on the quality of talk used in a collaborative learning task. Sample The participants in this study comprised 54 year 6 pupils from a Western Sydney government primary school (boys=26, girls=28). The ages ranged from 10 years 10 months to 12 years 4 months with a mean age of 11 years 4 months. Method The children were formed into 27 single sex dyads of low–middle‐ and low–high‐ability partnerships. In half of each of these dyads the higher ability partner was asked to help the lower ability partner, which was compared with just asking partners to work together. The quality of talk used by the dyads while working collaboratively on the problem‐solving task was analysed using a language analysis framework developed by Mercer and colleagues (e.g. Littleton et al., 2005 ; Mercer, 1994, 1996 ). Results Results of this study found that children who worked collaboratively in the low–middle‐ability dyad condition demonstrated significantly more high‐quality exploratory talk than those in the low–high‐ability dyad condition. Although there was no significant difference between dyads who were assigned roles and those who were asked to work together, there was an interaction trend which suggests that low–high‐ability dyads, who were given the roles of helper and learner, showed more exploratory talk than dyads who were asked just to work together. Conclusion Mercer's re‐conceptualization of Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) in terms of the Intermental Development Zone (IDZ), which is reliant on constructive challenging discourse, can potentially provide a platform upon which all learners in the classroom can benefit from collaborative learning experiences.     

The effect of peer collaboration on children's problem‐solving ability

Background. A Vygotskian framework links cognitive change to collaborative interaction with a more competent partner whereas a Piagetian perspective supports the view that cognitive conflict arising from peer interaction leads to cognitive change. Aims. The study investigated the effect of collaborative learning on children's problem‐solving ability and whether differences in knowledge status or the use of explanatory language were contributing factors. Sample. Participants were 100 Year 2 children (aged between 6 and 7 years), from schools in high socio‐economic areas, who individually completed a pre‐ and post‐test comprising a block sorting task. Method. During the experimental phase, children completed a card sorting activity, either individually or in same‐gender dyads. The dyads consisted of same or different ability children who operated under either a ‘talk’ or ‘no‐talk’ condition. Results. It was found that children who collaborated collectively obtained a significantly higher number of correct sorts than children who worked individually. However, post‐testing indicated that only those children of lower sorting ability who collaborated with higher sorting ability peers showed a significant improvement in sorting ability from pre‐test scores. In addition, it was found that when analysis was limited to this particular group, only those children who were required to explain the sort for their partner to carry out improved significantly from pre‐ to post‐test. Conclusion. It is suggested that perhaps the two theoretical positions are not as mutually exclusive as they are often portrayed. Implications of these findings for teachers and children's learning are also discussed.     

Collaboration facilitates abstract category learning

We examined the effects of collaboration (dyads vs. individuals) and category structure (coherent vs. incoherent) on learning and transfer. Working in dyads or individually, participants classified examples from either an abstract coherent category, the features of which are not fixed but relate in a meaningful way, or an incoherent category, the features of which do not relate meaningfully. All participants were then tested individually. We hypothesized that dyads would benefit more from classifying the coherent category structure because past work has shown that collaboration is more beneficial for tasks that build on shared prior knowledge and provide opportunities for explanation and abstraction. Results showed that dyads improved more than individuals during the classification task regardless of category coherence, but learning in a dyad improved inference-test performance only for participants who learned coherent categories. Although participants in the coherent categories performed better on a transfer test, there was no effect of collaboration.     

When training with a partner is inferior to training alone: the importance of dyad type and interaction quality

Dyad training, where trainees learn in pairs but ultimately perform individually, has been shown to be an effective method for training some skills. The effectiveness of this approach, however, may be tied to the type of task to be trained and the quality of the interaction in the dyad. We report two studies on the effectiveness of dyad training and the role of metacognitive activity for learning a software program. In Study 1, participants completed training alone or with a partner. Performance was assessed individually immediately after training and again after a 1-week nonuse interval. Results of Study 1 suggested that learning retention is superior when people are trained individually. Study 2 examined performance for individuals, task-switching dyads, and interdependent dyads. Results also showed that performance for individuals was superior to dyads and that the type of dyad collaboration did not affect performance. However, partner-prompted metacognitive activity was helpful for interdependent dyads and harmful for task-switching dyads, suggesting that the quality of collaboration varies by dyad type. Our findings suggest that dyad training may not be effective for all types of tasks. Possible boundary conditions for effective dyad training are discussed.     

The effects of collaborative practice on statistical problem solving: Benefits and boundaries

In recent years, understanding the effects of collaboration on learning and memory has emerged as a major topic of investigation. Findings from applied educational research and from basic cognitive research demonstrate a complex view of how collaboration affects learning. The present laboratory study bridged these two domains of research to address the question of how collaborative learning affects statistical problem solving. After viewing a lecture, participants completed two statistics tests. They either completed the tests collaboratively and then individually, or completed both tests individually. Results showed an immediate benefit of collaboration, but this benefit did not persist on a subsequent individual test. Repeated practice by those who worked individually increased performance to the level of those who had previously collaborated. These results were qualified by gender as females showed a consistent benefit from prior collaboration on the post-collaborative test, particularly on conceptual problems. Implications for education are discussed.     

Investigation of collaborative inhibition for key-term definitions

Collaborative inhibition is the counterintuitive finding that learners working in a group recall less information compared with the combined nonredundant output of the same number of learners working individually (Weldon & Bellinger, 1997). Although research has shown that collaborative inhibition occurs for a variety of to-be-learned material, no research has evaluated whether the effect emerges for key-term definitions. In two experiments, learners individually studied key-term definitions during an initial study phase. Learners then completed a retrieval practice phase, which occurred either collaboratively or individually. After a delay, all learners individually completed a final test phase. Performance during the retrieval practice phase is of greatest interest for present purposes. Results established collaborative inhibition such that recall was lower for learners in the collaborative group versus the individual group, which provides novel evidence to the collaborative memory literature by demonstrating that the effect emerges with key-term definitions.     

Collaborative inhibition in spatial memory retrieval

Collaborative inhibition refers to the finding that pairs of people working together to retrieve information from memory—a collaborative group—often retrieve fewer unique items than do nominal pairs, who retrieve individually but whose performance is pooled. Two experiments were designed to explore whether collaborative inhibition, which has heretofore been studied using traditional memory stimuli such as word lists, also characterizes spatial memory retrieval. In the present study, participants learned a layout of objects and then reconstructed the layout from memory, either individually or in pairs. The layouts created by collaborative pairs were more accurate than those created by individuals, but less accurate than those of nominal pairs, providing evidence for collaborative inhibition in spatial memory retrieval. Collaborative inhibition occurred when participants were allowed to dictate the order of object placement during reconstruction (Exp. 1), and also when object order was imposed by the experimenter (Exp. 2), which was intended to disrupt the retrieval processes of pairs as well as of individuals. Individual tests of perspective taking indicated that the underlying representations of pair members were no different than those of individuals; in all cases, spatial memories were organized around a reference frame aligned with the studied perspective. These results suggest that inhibition is caused by the product of group recall (i.e., seeing a partner’s object placement), not by the process of group recall (i.e., taking turns choosing an object to place). The present study has implications for how group performance on a collaborative spatial memory task may be optimized.     

Collaborative testing for key-term definitions under representative conditions: Efficiency costs and no learning benefits

Students are expected to learn key-term definitions across many different grade levels and academic disciplines. Thus, investigating ways to promote understanding of key-term definitions is of critical importance for applied purposes. A recent survey showed that learners report engaging in collaborative practice testing when learning key-term definitions, with outcomes also shedding light on the way in which learners report engaging in collaborative testing in real-world contexts (Wissman & Rawson, 2016, Memory, 24, 223–239). However, no research has directly explored the effectiveness of engaging in collaborative testing under representative conditions. Accordingly, the current research evaluates the costs (with respect to efficiency) and the benefits (with respect to learning) of collaborative testing for key-term definitions under representative conditions. In three experiments (ns = 94, 74, 95), learners individually studied key-term definitions and then completed retrieval practice, which occurred either individually or collaboratively (in dyads). Two days later, all learners completed a final individual test. Results from Experiments 1–2 showed a cost (with respect to efficiency) and no benefit (with respect to learning) of engaging in collaborative testing for key-term definitions. Experiment 3 evaluated a theoretical explanation for why collaborative benefits do not emerge under representative conditions. Collectively, outcomes indicate that collaborative testing versus individual testing is less effective and less efficient when learning key-term definitions under representative conditions.     

Mutual inhibition in collaborative recall: evidence for a retrieval-based account

In Experiment 1 participants gave 3 successive free recalls of items learned either individually or in pairwise collaboration. The first and third recalls were performed individually, the second alone or in collaboration. Collaborative recall led to an inhibitory effect after individual learning but not after collaborative learning, in which partners had similar retrieval strategies. Consistent with a retrieval locus for collaborative inhibition, non-recalled items reappeared in subsequent individual recall. Experiment 2 showed that collaborative inhibition was eliminated when a separate retrieval cue was given for each item. Experiments 2 and 3 also showed that when participants learned items in the same order, their retrieval strategies were more similar and they showed less collaborative inhibition. It is concluded that mutual interference in collaborative recall is due to the mutual disruption of individual retrieval strategies.     

Does retrieval strategy disruption cause general and specific collaborative inhibition?

The purpose of the experiment on collaborative memory was to investigate if the collaborative inhibition is due to collaborating pair's disruption of each others' retrieval strategies (the retrieval strategy disruption hypothesis, RSD). The participants' (N = 36) task was to recall a list of 60 words individually and collaboratively. Retrieval strategies were manipulated by presenting word lists organised either by categories or by country of origin and adoption of retrieval strategies were examined by the adjusted ratio of clustering score. Half of the dyads received word lists organised by the same strategy and half of the dyads received word lists organised by different strategies. The results revealed a main effect of collaboration, i.e., collaborative recalled items were significantly fewer than the sum of the non-redundant individually recalled items. Both conditions (same strategies vs different strategies) suffered to the same extent from collaboration, which did not support the RSD hypothesis. However, focusing on words recalled individually but not collaboratively, dyads with different strategies, as predicted by the RSD, forgot more items during collaboration than did dyads with the same strategy. Additional results suggest that collaborative forgetting is mainly manifested by forgetting of non-overlapping items (as measured by individual recalls).     

Beyond Idea Generation: The Power of Groups in Developing Ideas

Brainstorming research has claimed that individuals are more creative than groups. However, these conclusions are largely based on measuring creativity by the number of ideas generated, and researchers have tended to neglect other important components of creativity, such as the quality of developed ideas. These studies aim to address this gap in the literature and investigate how well individuals and groups develop ideas. The first study compared collaborative groups, nominal groups (i.e., groups composed of individuals working separately), and individuals on developing an original design for a language-learning game. No differences were revealed between conditions on the game ratings. In the second study, one idea was preselected and given to the participants for further development. Groups received higher ratings in the marketability and overall categories than both nominal groups and individuals, and higher ratings in the fun category than individuals. The qualitative data showed that groups discussed a wider range of topics and topics related to marketability more than individuals did. Thus it appears that there are benefits to developing ideas in a collaborative group rather than individually. Possible explanations for the present findings are explored.     

Collaboration and prospective memory: comparing nominal and collaborative group performance in strangers and couples

To perform prospective memory (PM) tasks in day-to-day life, we often enlist the help of others. Yet the effects of collaboration on PM are largely unknown. Adopting the methodology of the “collaborative recall paradigm”, we tested whether stranger dyads (Experiment 1) and intimate couples (Experiment 2) would perform better on a “Virtual Week” task when working together or each working separately. In Experiment 1, we found evidence of collaborative inhibition: collaborating strangers did not perform to their pooled individual potential, although the effect was modulated by PM task difficulty. We also found that the overall collaborative inhibition effect was attributable to both the retrospective and prospective components of PM. In Experiment 2 however, there was no collaborative inhibition: there was no significant difference in performance between couples working together or separately. Our findings suggest potential costs of collaboration to PM. Intimate relationships may reduce the usual costs of collaboration, with implications for intervention training programmes and for populations who most need PM support.     

Collaborative learning in engineering ethics

This paper discusses collaborative learning and its use in an elective course on ethics in engineering. Collaborative learning is a form of active learning in which students learn with and from one another in small groups. The benefits of collaborative learning include improved student performance and enthusiasm for learning, development of communication skills, and greater student appreciation of the importance of judgment and collaboration in solving real-world problems such as those encountered in engineering ethics. Collaborative learning strategies employed in the course include informal small group discussions/problem solving, role-playing exercises, and cooperative student group projects, including peer grading. Student response to these techniques has been highly favorable. Realizing the benefits of collaborative learning is a challenge to both teachers, who must give up some control in the classroom, and students, who must be willing to take greater responsibility for their learning. An earlier version of this paper was presented by the author at a mini-conference, Practicing and Teaching Ethics in Engineering and Computing, held during the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics, Washington, D.C., March 8–9, 1997 The author teaches courses in Science, Technology and Society and is Director of the Benjamin Franklin Scholars Program, a dual-degree program in engineering and humanities/social sciences.     

Confidence in Dyadic Decision Making: The Role of Individual Differences

Groups typically express more confidence than individuals, yet how individual‐level confidence combines during collaborative decision tasks is not well understood. We prescreened 686 community members using a novel confidence measure (a true/false trivia test) intentionally designed to be difficult (accuracy rates were not significantly better than chance) and randomly assigned 72 individuals to collaborate on a matched version of the same test in dyads composed of two low‐confidence individuals, two high‐confidence individuals, or one of each (“mixed”). Consistent with past research, we found that the confidence expressed by dyads was higher than the confidence expressed by individuals; importantly, however, this pattern varied markedly by dyad type, with low‐confidence dyads showing the largest increase, mixed dyads showing a moderate increase, and high‐confidence dyads showing no increase—despite the fact that all dyads showed similarly low accuracy (about 55%). These results highlight the conditions under which groups express greater confidence than individuals and offer insights for the composition of collaborative decision‐making teams. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The effect of expertise on collaborative problem solving

Why do some groups succeed where others fail? We hypothesise that collaborative success is achieved when the relationship between the dyad's prior expertise and the complexity of the task creates a situation that affords constructive and interactive processes between group members. We call this state the zone of proximal facilitation in which the dyad's prior knowledge and experience enables them to benefit from both knowledge-based problem-solving processes (e.g., elaboration, explanation, and error correction) andcollaborative skills (e.g., creating common ground, maintaining joint attention to the task). To test this hypothesis we conducted an experiment in which participants with different levels of aviation expertise, experts (flight instructors), novices (student pilots), and non-pilots, read flight problem scenarios of varying complexity and had to identify the problem and generate a solution with either another participant of the same level of expertise or alone. The non-pilots showed collaborative inhibition on problem identification in which dyads performed worse than their predicted potential for both simple and complex scenarios, whereas the novices and experts did not. On solution generation the non-pilot and novice dyads performed at their predicted potential with no collaborative inhibition on either simple or complex scenarios. In contrast, expert dyads showed collaborative gains, withdyads performing above their predicted potential, but only for the complex scenarios. On simple scenarios the expert dyads showed collaborative inhibition and performed worse than their predicted potential. We discuss the implications of these results for theories of collaborative problem solving.     

Collective decision making reduces metacognitive control and increases error rates,particularly for overconfident individuals

This research aimed to investigate the changes in judgment accuracy, confidence, control thresholds, and decision outcomes when people act in two-person groups (dyads) compared with acting individually. First, we used interacting dyads to determine the metacognitive and behavioral outcomes of collective decision making and compared them with those of individuals. Second, we examined whether these changes were related to the trait-confidence and bias of individuals working together. Using a within-person design, undergraduate psychology students (N = 116) completed a General-knowledge Test individually, then together as a dyad. Each question was accompanied by a confidence rating and a decision to bet $10 on the answer. Dyads had significantly higher confidence and lower control thresholds than individuals. They were also significantly more decisive (made more bets) and reckless (lost a higher rate of bets) than when working alone. Thus, we observed a higher rate of decision errors for groups than individuals. The results also demonstrated the important role of individual differences: Overconfident individuals became even more confident, decisive, and reckless when working together compared with less confident or underconfident individuals working together. These findings have important theoretical and applied implications for collective decision making; metacognitive bias and potentially control thresholds may be targeted to alleviate the larger error rates and guide the formation of more effective groups.     

Collaboration inflation: Egocentric source monitoring errors following collaborative remembering

Following collaborative remembering, people may adopt their partner's contributions as their own memory. In two studies, we asked people to study partially overlapping lists of words. During collaborative remembering, dyads either worked to include all words no matter who studied them or limited recall to only words studied by both dyad members. This differential focus on source information during collaborative recall impacted performance on a later source memory test. Nonetheless we found frequent source monitoring errors that displayed an egocentric bias. People were more likely to claim their partner's contributions as their own memories than attribute their memories to their partners. In collaborative remembering, people work to construct an agreed upon version of the past that quickly becomes each individual's memory.     

协作抑制的多机制解释:来自编码加工方式和编码相似性的证据

协作抑制是指小组提取的信息量比等量个体单独提取的信息总量要少。对于协作过程降低小组成员提取潜能的机制解释,不同研究之间仍有争论。本研究实验1使用经典的生存加工范式,实验2使用联想记忆训练法,分别考察编码加工方式和编码相似性对协作提取成绩的影响,从而检验提取抑制和策略破坏机制是否能分别影响协作抑制。研究结果表明,被试在生存和非生存(愉悦度和自我经历)加工条件下都出现协作抑制现象,而生存加工条件下的协作抑制量显著小于非生存加工条件;在使用联想记忆训练法之后,相同学习顺序组没有出现协作抑制,而不同学习顺序组出现了经典的协作抑制。本研究结果为协作抑制的可能存在的多机制解释提供了证据。     

Does working memory training lead to generalized improvements in children with low working memory? A randomized controlled trial

Children with low working memory typically make poor educational progress, and it has been speculated that difficulties in meeting the heavy working memory demands of the classroom may be a contributory factor. Intensive working memory training has been shown to boost performance on untrained memory tasks in a variety of populations. This first randomized controlled trial with low working memory children investigated whether the benefits of training extend beyond standard working memory tasks to other more complex activities typical of the classroom in which working memory plays a role, as well as to other cognitive skills and developing academic abilities. Children aged 7–9 years received either adaptive working memory training, non‐adaptive working memory training with low memory loads, or no training. Adaptive training was associated with selective improvements in multiple untrained tests of working memory, with no evidence of changes in classroom analogues of activities that tax working memory, or any other cognitive assessments. Gains in verbal working memory were sustained one year after training. Thus the benefits of working memory training delivered in this way may not extend beyond structured working memory tasks.