Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Split up, but stay together: Collaboration and cooperation in mathematical problem solving

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Conditions under which group work leads to learning have been studied in collaborative settings. Little is known, however, about whether and how the interplay between collaboration and cooperation impinges on group learning. In this paper, we study this interplay in the context of mathematical problem-solving. We focus on how training students to learn together influences this interplay, and on the relations of this interplay with mathematical problem-solving. Five groups of Grade 8 students participated in a course aimed at fostering learning to solve mathematical problems in small groups. Before and after the course, they solved a mathematical problem. An increase in the ratio of cooperation episodes out of total group work time was observed, as well as advancements in mathematical problem-solving. In addition, we found a mid-high correlation between instances of cooperation and mathematical activity: up to a certain threshold, cooperating more in a group yielded an increase in the individual generation of mathematical claims and arguments. We identified the critical role of coordination: for group learning to be productive, students should continuously negotiate and adjust their goals through communication before or while they cooperate on different tasks. We conclude that teachers aiming at fostering group work should encourage the diversification of modes of group work, for the advancement of mathematical problem-solving or of any case in which individual settings are too challenging.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdu, R., Schwarz, B., & Mavrikis, M. (2015). Whole-class scaffolding for learning to solve mathematics problems together in a computer-supported environment. ZDM Mathematics Education,47(7), 1163–1178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R., Chinn, C., Chang, J., Waggoner, M., & Yi, H. (1997). On the logical integrity of children's arguments. Cognition and Instruction,15, 135–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baghaei, N., Mitrovic, A., & Irwin, W. (2007). Supporting collaborative learning and problem-solving in a constraint-based CSCL environment for UML class diagrams. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,2, 159–190.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. Journal of the Learning Sciences,9(4), 403–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences,12(3), 307–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cifarelli, V. V., & Cai, J. (2005). The evolution of mathematical explorations in open-ended problem-solving situations. Journal of Mathematical Behavior,24(3–4), 302–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Claxton, G. (2004). Teaching children to learn: Beyond flat-packs and fine words. Burning issues in primary education no. 11. Birmingham: National Primary Trust.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, L., Mercer, N., & Wegerif, R. (2000). Thinking together: A programme of activities for developing thinking skills at KS2. Birmingham: Questions Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Derry, S. J., Pea, R. D., Barron, B., Engle, R. A., Erickson, F., Goldman, R., et al. (2010). Conducting video research in the learning sciences: Guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics. Journal of the Learning Sciences,19(1), 3–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by “collaborative learning”? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning cognitive and computational approaches (Vol. 1, pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreyfus, T., Hershkowitz, R., & Schwarz, B. (2015). The nested epistemic actions model for abstraction in context: Theory as methodological tool and methodological tool as theory. Approaches to qualitative research in mathematics education (pp. 185–217). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F., Kollar, I., Stegmann, K., & Wecker, C. (2013). Toward a script theory of guidance in computer-supported collaborative learning. Educational Psychologist,48(1), 56–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fredriksson, U., & Hoskins, B. (2007). The development of learning to learn in a European context. Curriculum Journal,18(2), 127–134.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, M. (2017). Online collaboration and cooperation: The recurring importance of evidence, rationale and viability. Education and Information Technologies,22(3), 1005–1024.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermann, F., Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2001). Solving the case together: The challenge of net-based interdisciplinary collaboration. In First European Conference on Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning.

  • Hernández Leo, D., Asensio-Pérez, J. I., Dimitriadis, Y., Bote-Lorenzo, M. L., Jorrín-Abellán, I. M., & Villasclaras-Fernández, E. D. (2005). Reusing IMS-LD formalized best practices in collaborative learning structuring. Advanced Technology for Learning,2(3), 223–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, S., Wall, K., Baumfield, V., Hall, E., Leat, D., & Woolner, P. (2006). Learning to learn in schools phase 3 evaluation: Year two report. London: Campaign for Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iiskala, T., Vauras, M., Lehtinen, E., & Salonen, P. (2011). Socially shared metacognition of dyads of pupils in collaborative mathematical problem-solving processes. Learning and Instruction,21(3), 379–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2002). Learning together and alone: Overview and meta-analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Education,22, 95–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaddoura, M. (2013). Think pair share: A teaching learning strategy to enhance students' critical thinking. Educational Research Quarterly,36(4), 3–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kapur, M. (2014). Productive failure in learning math. Cognitive Science,38(5), 1008–1022.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational psychologist,41(2), 75–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koichu, B., Berman, A., & Moore, M. (2007). The effect of promoting heuristic literacy on the mathematical aptitude of middle-school students. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology,38(1), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kontorovich, I., Koichu, B., Leikin, R., & Berman, A. (2012). An exploratory framework for handling the complexity of mathematical problem posing in small groups. Journal of Mathematical Behavior,31(1), 149–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leont'ev, A. N. (1974). The problem of activity in psychology. Soviet Psychology,13(2), 4–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lester, F. K. (1994). Musings about mathematical problem-solving research: 1970–1994. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,25(6), 660–675.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lester, F. K., & Cai, J. (2016). Can mathematical problem-solving be taught? Preliminary answers from 30 years of research. Posing and solving mathematical problems (pp. 117–135). Cham: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liljedahl, P., & Santos-Trigo, M. (2019). Mathematical problem-solving. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & d’Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research,66(4), 423–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oner, D. (2013). Analyzing group coordination when solving geometry problems with dynamic geometry software. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,8(1), 13–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pólya, G. (1945). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem-solving. Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, M. B. (1986). Wait time: Slowing down may be a way of speeding up! Journal of teacher education,37(1), 43–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rummel, N., & Spada, H. (2005). Learning to collaborate: An instructional approach to promoting collaborative problem-solving in computer-mediated settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences,14(2), 201–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, B. (2019). Unpacking collaborative learning processes during hands-on activities using mobile eye-trackers. In Paper presented in the 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning. London, England.

  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem-solving. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A. H. (2007). Problem-solving in the United States, 1970–2008: research and theory, practice and politics. ZDM-International Journal on Mathematics Education,39(5–6), 537–551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B. B., Hershkowitz, R., & Prusak, N. (2010). Argumentation and mathematics. In C. Howe & K. Littleton (Eds.), Educational dialogues: Understanding and promoting productive interaction (pp. 115–141). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, B. B., De Groot, R., Mavrikis, M., & Dragon, T. (2015). Learning to learn together with CSCL tools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,10(3), 239–271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharan, S., & Shachar, H. (2012). Language and learning in the cooperative classroom. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. M., & Mancy, R. (2018). Exploring the relationship between metacognitive and collaborative talk during group mathematical problem-solving–what do we mean by collaborative metacognition? Research in Mathematics Education,20(1), 14–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, G. (2009). Studying virtual math teams. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Toulmin, S. (1969). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W., Segers, M., Woltjer, G., & Kirschner, P. (2011). Team learning: Building shared mental models. Instructional Science,39(3), 283–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veenman, M. V., Wilhelm, P., & Beishuizen, J. J. (2004). The relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills from a developmental perspective. Learning and Instruction,14(1), 89–109.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vogel, F., Kollar, I., Ufer, S., Reichersdorfer, E., Reiss, K., & Fischer, F. (2016). Developing argumentation skills in mathematics through computer-supported collaborative learning: The role of transactivity. Instructional Science,44(5), 477–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., Franke, M. L., Ing, M., Wong, J., Fernandez, C. H., Shin, N., et al. (2014). Engaging with others’ mathematical ideas: Interrelationships among student participation, teachers’ instructional practices, and learning. International Journal of Educational Research,63, 79–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegerif, R. (2006). A dialogic understanding of the relationship between CSCL and teaching thinking skills. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning,1(1), 143–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegerif, R. (2015). Technology and teaching thinking. In The Routledge International Handbook of Research on Teaching Thinking (p. 427). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegerif, R., & Mercer, N. (1997). A Dialogical framework for investigating talk. In R. Wegerif & P. Scrimshaw (Eds.), Computers and talk in the primary classroom (pp. 49–65). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wit, A. P. (2006). Interacting in task groups. In O. Hargie (Ed.), Handbook of communication skills (3rd ed., pp. 383–402). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The present research was undertaken within the framework of the EU-funded Metafora Project (ICT-257872). The questionnaires were approved by the Chief Scientist of the Israel Ministry of Education, and by the ethical committee of the Hebrew University. We are indebted to the reviewers for their precious comments and for their encouragements.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Haifa University, Haifa, Israel

    Rotem Abdu

  2. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel

    Baruch Schwarz

Authors
  1. Rotem Abdu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Baruch Schwarz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rotem Abdu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

This study received an authorization of the Israeli Ministry of Education. The parents/legal guardians of the students signed consent forms so the students were able participate in the activities and be filmed for this study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Abdu, R., Schwarz, B. Split up, but stay together: Collaboration and cooperation in mathematical problem solving. Instr Sci 48, 313–336 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-020-09512-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-020-09512-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation