collaborative problem solving in education

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Published: 04 June 2018

Collaborative problem-solving education for the twenty-first-century workforce

• Stephen M. Fiore 1 ,
• Arthur Graesser 2 &
• Samuel Greiff 3  

Nature Human Behaviour volume  2 ,  pages 367–369 ( 2018 ) Cite this article

1633 Accesses

59 Citations

30 Altmetric

Metrics details

The complex research, policy and industrial challenges of the twenty-first century require collaborative problem solving. Assessments suggest that, globally, many graduates lack necessary competencies. There is a pressing need, therefore, to improve and expand teaching of collaborative problem solving in our education systems.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Pre-service teachers becoming researchers: the role of professional learning groups in creating a community of inquiry

• Sandris Zeivots
• , John Douglas Buchanan
•  &  Kimberley Pressick-Kilborn

The Australian Educational Researcher Open Access 20 January 2023

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles

111,21 € per year

only 9,27 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fiore, S. M. et al. Collaborative Problem Solving: Considerations for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (National Center for Educational Statistics, United States Department of Education, Washington DC, 2017).

Graesser, A. C. et al. in Assessment and Teaching of 21st Century Skills. Research and Applications (eds Care, E., Griffin, P. & Wilson, M.) Ch. 5 (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2018); https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-65368-6_5 .

PISA 2015 Results (Volume V): Collaborative Problem Solving (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2017); https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264285521-en

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Education for Life and Work: Transferable Knowledge and Skills in the 21st Century (National Academies Press, Washington DC, 2012); https://doi.org/10.17226/13398

National Research Council Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science (National Academies Press, Washington DC, 2015); https://doi.org/10.17226/19007

The Royal Society Assessing Experimental Science in 11–18 Education: New Research Directions (Royal Society Press, 2016); https://royalsociety.org/~/media/events/2016/10/education-conference-report-12-october-2016.pdf

Hart Research Associates Falling Short? College Learning and Career Success (Association of American Colleges and Universities, 2015).

Critical Skills Survey (American Management Association, 2012); https://www.amanet.org/uploaded/2012-Critical-Skills-Survey.pdf

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Building America’s Skilled Technical Workforce (National Academies Press, Washington DC, 2017); https://doi.org/10.17226/23472

Weinberger, C. J. Rev. Econ. Stat. 96 , 849–861 (2014).

Article   Google Scholar  

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA

Stephen M. Fiore

University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA

Arthur Graesser

University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg

Samuel Greiff

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stephen M. Fiore .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Fiore, S.M., Graesser, A. & Greiff, S. Collaborative problem-solving education for the twenty-first-century workforce. Nat Hum Behav 2 , 367–369 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0363-y

Download citation

Published : 04 June 2018

Issue Date : June 2018

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0363-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

Improving collaborative problem-solving skills via automated feedback and scaffolding: a quasi-experimental study with cpscoach 2.0.

• Sidney K. D’Mello
• Nicholas Duran
• Angela E. B. Stewart

User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction (2024)

• John Douglas Buchanan
• Kimberley Pressick-Kilborn

The Australian Educational Researcher (2023)

Exploring the effects of role scripts and goal-orientation scripts in collaborative problem-solving learning

Education and Information Technologies (2023)

Integrating a collaboration script and group awareness to support group regulation and emotions towards collaborative problem solving

• Matias Rojas
• Miguel Nussbaum
• Danilo Alvares

International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (2022)

Multimodal modeling of collaborative problem-solving facets in triads

• Zachary Keirn

User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction (2021)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

• Research article
• Open access
• Published: 14 July 2021

Exploring the effect of three scaffoldings on the collaborative problem-solving processes in China’s higher education

• Fan Ouyang   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4382-1381 1 ,
• Zixuan Chen 1 ,
• Mengting Cheng 1 ,
• Zifan Tang 1 &
• Chien-Yuan Su 2  

International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education volume  18 , Article number:  35 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

5819 Accesses

23 Citations

4 Altmetric

Metrics details

Collaborative problem-solving (CPS) engages students in solving ill-structured problems, creating group knowledge, and developing self-regulation and collaboration skills. Different scaffoldings, such as minimal-guided, task-oriented, and idea-oriented, can be used to facilitate students’ CPS activities, but their effects have not been comprehensively explored. In this research, we use minimally-guided, task-oriented, and idea-oriented scaffoldings to promote Chinese university students’ online CPS activities and use a multi-method approach to analyze the effects of three scaffolding on collaboration. The results indicate relatively complicated collaborative processes and outcomes supported by three scaffoldings. It is initially shown that the idea-centered scaffolding strengthens students’ connections between idea contribution, metacognitive regulation, and knowledge artifact behaviors, which are critical factors for improving the CPS quality. Based on the empirical research results, we conclude that future instructional design should carefully consider the educational culture, time constraint, and student regulation to better facilitate CPS practices.

Introduction

Grounded upon the social perspective of learning (Vygotsky, 1978 ), computer-supported collaborative learning (CSCL) emphasizes small groups of people’s collaboration practices in coordinated activities to maintain mutual understandings, to advance joint meaning-making, and to create new knowledge and artifacts (Dillenbourg, 1999 ; Goodyear et al., 2014 ; Roschelle & Teasley, 1995 ). As one of the CSCL modes, collaborative problem-solving (CPS) engages people to work in groups to solve problems that are often open-ended and ill-structured, and beyond the existing skills and abilities of the individual learner (Brown et al., 1989 ; Kapur, 2008 ; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006 ). To facilitate a high quality of CPS, instructional scaffoldings, e.g., minimally guided instruction, task-oriented scaffolding, and idea-oriented scaffolding, are commonly used. However, previous empirical results varied about the effectiveness and efficiency of different instructional scaffoldings on collaborative learning practices (Hmelo-Silver & DeSimone, 2013 ; Kirschner et al., 2006 ; Stahl, 2009 ). From the research perspective, one of the reasons that result in the different conclusions owing to the complex, multi-dimensional characteristics of the collaborative learning activity, but most studies merely focus on one or two dimensions of the collaborative processes (Janssen et al., 2013 ). Filling the research and practice gaps, we designed a quasi-experiment research to provide groups with the minimally-guided, task-oriented, and idea-oriented scaffoldings during online CPS activities in China’s higher education. To better understand the effect of scaffoldings, we conducted a fine-grained, multidimensional analysis of the CPS process with a multi-method approach. Specifically, student groups’ collaborations were examined from the social, cognitive, metacognitive, behavioral, and temporal dimensions, supplemented with the analyses of groups’ collaborative products and students’ perceptions about collaboration. Based on the empirical research results, we provided pedagogical implications that help foster online collaborative problem-solving.

Literature review

Collaborative problem-solving processes.

CSCL focuses on the collaborating groups’ meaning-making practices with the design and support of technological artifacts to mediate interactions and communications (Hmelo-Silver, 2004 ; Hmelo-Silver & DeSimone, 2013 ; Stahl, 2009 ). CPS, as one of the main CSCL modes, has been widely used in schools to improve student learning and performance (Kapur, 2008 ). CPS is defined as a group of learners building mutual understandings of a shared problem, pooling together their expertise, skills, and efforts, and come up with a final solution for the problem (Barron, 2000 ; Fiore et al., 2017 ; Hmelo-silver, 2004 ). CPS typically situates learning in solving real-world authentic, ill-structured problems, encourages students to create group knowledge, and develops responsibilities, self-regulation and collaboration skills for learning (Hmelo-Silver & DeSimone, 2013 ; Jonassen, 1997 ; Salomon, 1993 ). CPS has been widely used in K-12, higher education, and informal learning to improve students’ learning quality (e.g., Avry et al., 2020 ; Chang et al., 2017 ; Hong et al., 2011 ).

CPS is a complex, multidimensional, and multilevel practice that needs students’ coordination of the social, cognitive, metacognitive, and behavioral activities in a temporal fashion (Fiore et al., 2017 ; Hmelo-Silver & DeSimone, 2013 ; Stahl, 2009 ). First, CPS cannot be completed with a low level of social interaction and participation (Stahl, 2009 ). The group of students must participate in the social practices and interact with each other to jointly solve problems (Hakkarainen et al., 2013 ). Next, cognitive engagement to solve the ill-structured problems usually needs students’ exploration and understanding of the problem, proposition, and justification of the solutions, and the sustained development of new ideas and artifacts in the groups (Hakkarainen et al., 2013 ; Paavola et al., 2004 ; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 2006 ). Third, on the behavioral dimension, students need to take actions to externalize their knowledge in artifacts (e.g., concept map, writing document) and refer to peers’ behavior to coordinate their group activity and optimize the knowledge artifacts (Stahl, 2017 ). Moreover, to succeed in the group collaboration, students need to negotiate what to achieve as a group, plan, and implement problem-solving strategies, and monitor and reflect on the working progress (Järvelä & Hadwin, 2013 ; Winne et al., 2013 ). And the social, cognitive, behavioral, and metacognitive activities unfold in a time frame that enable students to coordinate their interactions, cognition, and actions to complete a high quality collaboration (Kapur, 2011 ; Lämsä et al., 2020 ).

Effects of instructional scaffoldings

Different instructional strategies to scaffold the CPS processes have been implemented and studied. In general, scaffolding refers to a process in which an agent (e.g., the instructor, a peer and/or a computer system) helps a learner to complete the tasks that are challenging for the learner without any external assistance (Wood et al., 1976 ). In this research, the instructional scaffolding refers to the instructor’s procedural support in an online collaborative environment that guides students to engage in the CPS processes (see Hong & Lin, 2019 ). Because of the complex nature of CPS, although the minimally guided instruction is intuitively appealing for collaborative learning design, it may not always lead to desirable outcomes, such that instructors need to provide some forms of scaffoldings to support student collaboration (Hmelo-Silver & DeSimone, 2013 ; Hong & Lin, 2019 ; Kirschner et al., 2006 ). The task-oriented and the idea-oriented instructions are two primary approaches the instructors can use (Hong, 2011 ; Hong & Lin, 2019 ; Hong & Sullivan, 2009 ). In the task-oriented CPS activity, to achieve maximum efficiency of collaborative work, students are frequently asked to complete a project or solve a problem in the highly-structured group activities with some forms of group-working techniques, such as division of labor and scripted role-playing (Hmelo-Silver, 2004 ; Hong & Lin, 2019 ; Hong & Sullivan, 2009 ). For example, the task-oriented, role-assigned Jigsaw instruction has been widely used to engage students work in the expert groups and the jigsaw groups to explore, share and synthesize knowledge (Oshima et al., 2019 ). An alternative design of the CPS activity is based on the idea-centered collaboration that sees ideas as the core for students to create and build on, which emphasizes less-scripted, and more flexible, self-organized interactions in groups (Hong, 2011 ; Hong & Sullivan, 2009 ; Zhang et al., 2009 ). For example, the idea-centered knowledge building pedagogy engages students work in the knowledge forum to post their problems, produce initial ideas for problem-solving, and connect, revise, and synthesize ideas (Hong, 2011 ). In summary, while the instructional scaffoldings can take varying forms (e.g., scripts, prompts, tools), the task-oriented and idea-oriented scaffoldings are two primary means the instructors can use to design and organize the CPS activity.

However, previous empirical research indicates complicated effects of the task-oriented and idea-oriented scaffoldings on the collaborative learning processes and outcomes. For example, Hong ( 2011 ) compared the conventional task-based collaborative learning using the Jigsaw instruction and the idea-centered collaborative knowledge building; results showed that engaging students in idea-centered collaboration better enhanced their collaborative competencies, facilitated their peer interactions, and improved the idea improvement quality. However, some learning and instruction characteristics overlapped: the routines and procedures were still the unavoidable parts in idea-oriented learning, while knowledge advancement also occurred in task-oriented learning (Hong, 2011 ). Wang et al. ( 2017 ) examined the effect of student collaboration in the concept-oriented task (involving sharing information and knowledge) and design-oriented (involving task planning, monitoring and problem-solving) task; results showed that collaborative concept mapping functioned more effectively in the concept-oriented task than the design-oriented task, in terms of promoting students’ question-asking and positive motivations. But there were no significant differences in other social, cognitive, and emotional dimensions. Baghaei et al. ( 2007 ) designed an intelligent tutoring system to provide task-based and collaboration-based feedback messages to groups; empirical results showed that the use of the task-based structure achieved similar effectiveness on learning as the collaboration-based structure. Lin and Chan ( 2018 ) compared two key epistemic patterns during knowledge building, namely problem-centered uptake and theory‐building moves; their analysis showed that the higher‐quality discourse threads included more problem-centered uptake moves in which ideas were built more coherently on each other to address the central problem. Given the complexity, it is necessary to examine how different scaffoldings influence collaborative learning; in particular, a close examination of varied dimensions (i.e., social, cognitive, metacognitive, behavioral, and temporal) of CPS is critical for reaching a solid understanding.

The analytical framework and methods of the CPS processes

The CSCL field has been promoting the use of multiple analytical methods to understand the complication of collaborative learning from the fine-grained, micro-level, and multi-dimensional perspectives (Borge & Mercier, 2019 ; Janssen et al., 2013 ; Suthers et al., 2013 ). More importantly, previous research in CSCL identifies primary dimensions of online collaborative learning processes (including social, cognitive, metacognitive, behavioral, and temporal) to assure students to effectively organize, coordinate, and contribute to the CSCL process in order to build group knowledge, solve collective problems, and achieve collective accomplishments (Garrison et al., 2000 ; Henri, 1992 ; Lämsä et al., 2020 ). Both qualitative and quantitative methods are used to reveal the interactions that can be attribute. On the one hand, the quantitative analysis approaches have been used to examine summative, sequential, temporal attributes of the group’s collaborative learning processes (Puntambekar, 2013 ). For example, the statistical analysis, sequential analysis, and social network analysis approaches have been used to investigate correlations between collaborative variables (Zemel et al., 2009 ), sequences of students’ knowledge contributions (Chen et al., 2017 ) and social interaction structures and participatory roles (Ouyang & Chang, 2019 ; Ouyang & Scharber, 2017 ), respectively. On the other hand, qualitative, ethnographic approaches (e.g., content or discourse analysis) have also been used to examine the micro-level turn-taking relevancies between the interactional, behavioral, and cognitive activities (Stahl, 2009 ; Zemel & Koschmann, 2013 ). Hong et al. ( 2011 ) collected teacher students’ online discussions, survey responses, and interviews to investigate their interaction patterns, reflective patterns, and knowledge building perceptions. Moreover, the analysis of the temporal dimension is critical to reveal collaborative processes that may be overshadowed through quantitative “coding-and-counting” approach (Chen et al., 2017 ; Kapur, 2011 ; Lämsä et al., 2020 ). Considering the multi-dimensional characteristics of CPS, merely focusing on one dimension of collaboration may cause inconclusive and incomprehensive results regarding the effects of instructional design; therefore, multiple analytical methods can complement each other in order to provide a more holistic, fine-grained analysis of the CPS process. Moreover, a better understanding of the effect of scaffoldings on the CPS process can improve the future pedagogical design, which is critical for facilitating a high-level quality of CPS.

To advance research, analysis, and practice of CPS, this quasi-experiment research used the minimally-guided, task-oriented, and idea-oriented scaffoldings to facilitate the CPS activity, and used a multi-method approach to examine the main dimensions of CPS practices under three scaffolding conditions. In the following sections, we introduced the research context, the analysis methods, procedures, and results and provide relevant implications.

Methodology

Research purpose and questions.

To investigate the effect of different scaffoldings, we designed and facilitated collaborative problem-solving activities in China’s higher education context with the support of an online technological platform. Our research question was: What were the differences of the effect of the minimally-guided, task-oriented, and idea-oriented scaffoldings on groups’ CPS processes?

Research context, participants and procedure

The research context was the online, synchronous CPS activity in China’s higher education context. The CPS activity belonged to a graduate-level course titled Distance and Online Education , offered in the 2020 Spring semester (8 weeks) by the Educational Technology (ET) program at a top research-intensive university in China. The course instructor (the first author) designed and facilitated the CPS activity to engage small groups (triads) to solve authentic problems instructors would face in distance and online education during COVID-19. The instructor designed eight ill-structured, open-ended problem cases, covering different subjects, student ages, and educational contexts. Cases included the design of online teaching components, (a) synchronous discussions, collaborative projects for mathematics, programming, engineering, geography classes, etc. (see “Appendix A ” for an example). A research consent form was sent through the ET program’s social media (WeChat group) to invite students to participate in the research. Ten participants voluntarily participated and agreed with the data collections; one participant withdrew the participation in the middle of the semester, which was excluded from the research (see Table 1 ).

The primary instructional design of the 8-week CPS activities followed the problem-based learning cycle (Hmelo-silver, 2004 ): students first analyzed the problem scenario, then identified the critical aspects or knowledge needed to be addressed for the problem, next generated possible solutions through the concept mapping function, and finally reflected on the knowledge applied and/or created during the process. The problems were all ill-structured problems that did not have a fixed solution. The quasi-experiment design was structured into two phases (see Fig.  1 ). The first four weeks was designed as an initiation, warm-up phase for students to get familiar with the collaborative flow, online platform, and group work, because previous research indicated that Chinese students would be more used to learn with the highly-structured procedure rather than the open-ended, collaborative inquiry in small groups (Hong et al., 2011 ; Ouyang et al., 2020 ; Supanc et al., 2017 ). The instructor’s basic scaffoldings (e.g., providing relevant resources, explaining the problem-based learning procedures, solving technique issues, and reminding the remaining time) were provided to all groups in the initiation phase. The last four weeks were the experimental phase. There was one control group (i.e., Group A) with the minimal-guided scaffolding (MS), one experimental group (i.e., Group B) with the task-oriented scaffolding (TS), and another experimental group (i.e., Group C) with the idea-oriented scaffolding (IS) (see Fig.  1 ). Group A was the control group where students followed the regular CPS practice as they did in the initiation phase, supported with the instructor’s minimal guidance. Group B was offered with the task-oriented scaffolding, through which the instructor provided suggestions about critical aspects to be addressed and corresponding sub-tasks for students to complete. The scaffolding was offered in audio and text by the instructor every 10 min through the online platform. The prompts included The overarching goal is … as a group , we plan to complete the task with step 1…, step 2…, and step 3 …, Our strategy is … to complete the task 1/2/3 …, Currently, we focus on the idea/question/solution of … What we have done well is … What we could improve is … Where we are now to achieve the goal … What we need to do next to complete the goal is… Group C was offered with the idea-oriented scaffolding, through which the instructor asked students to identify their knowledge deficiency (i.e., the learning theories or instructional models that could underpin the problem-solving process) and explore and propose a theoretical or instructional framework to solve the problem. The scaffolding was offered in audio and text every 10 min through the online platform. The prompts included: Is the current idea novel and interesting based on the framework? Can we improve the idea or framework in any way? , Is this idea workable? , Is this idea relevant? , Is this idea specific to the problem to be solved? The crucial difference between those two scaffoldings is that the idea-oriented scaffolding used the idea-centered knowledge building pedagogy to empower students create new solutions based on the theoretical or instructional framework they chose (Hong & Sullivan, 2009 ), while the task-oriented scaffolding merely reminder students to complete the concept mapping activity through multiple steps rather than focusing on idea-centered knowledge building.

The research procedure

The online platform Huiyizhuo ( https://www.huiyizhuo.com/ ) was used to support the collaboration (see Fig.  2 ). Huiyizhuo provides text chatting, audio and video communication, concept map, note and comment, resource sharing, etc. In the CPS process, group members first communicated through audio and text chatting to determine how to proceed with the problem; then, groups shared resources, continued communications and constructed concept map to demonstrate their problem-solving processes; and finally wrote the groups’ solution proposal as a separated section on the platform. The concept map served as the main medium for participants to interpret the problem at hand, discuss and negotiate their understandings, present knowledge from multiple perspectives, identify misunderstandings and finally reach the group consensus of the solution (Engelmann & Hesse, 2010 ).

A group’s screenshot on the Huiyizhuo platform

Data collection and analysis

The data was collected in three ways. The original data was the computer screen recordings with audio (about 1.5 h/group/week), supplemented with the groups’ concept maps, solution write-ups, and students’ questionnaire responses after each week’s CPS activity (see “Appendix B ”). The original data (i.e., computer screen recordings with audio) was transcribed to 12 excel files (4 files for each group) that recorded students’ online discourses and behaviors.

A multi-method approach was used to examine details of the groups’ collaboration from the social, cognitive, metacognitive and behavioral dimensions (see Table 2 ). First, social network analysis (SNA) was used to analyze the social characteristics that represented group interactions through oral communications and knowledge artifacts. The original data were transformed into a directed, weighted student–student network dataset. In the networks, the direction represented who responded to whom and built on whose work (i.e., bi-directional); tie weight represented the frequency of responses, replies and build-on work a participant makes to others (i.e., interaction frequency). We chose three network-level metrics to represent social characteristics, including the total interaction frequency, the average degree (calculated by outdegree and indegree with the Opsahl’s alpha of 0.5), the coefficient of variation (CV) of interaction (the standard deviation of student interaction frequency divided by its mean) (Opsahl, 2009 ; Ouyang, 2021 ; Ouyang & Scharber, 2017 ). The total interaction frequency represents the group’s overall social interaction levels; average degree represents the average level of interaction frequency in a group; CV represents the unbalanced attributes of interactions between students in a group (e.g., a larger CV indicates a more unbalance interaction in a group).

Then, content analysis (CA) was used to examine the cognitive and metacognitive characteristics of three groups (see Table 2 ). Referring to a previous study (Ouyang & Chang, 2019 ), we used the CA approach to analyze the cognitive dimension that represented students’ knowledge contributions in the superficial, medium, and deep levels (see Table 3 ). Referring to the previous research (Malmberg et al., 2017 ), we used the CA approach again to analyze the metacognitive dimension that represented students’ regulation of their collaborations. Three codes of the metacognitive dimension were task understanding, goal setting and planning, and monitoring and reflection (see Table 3 ). In the CA process, the unit of analysis was the sentence (i.e., a full sentence spoken by a participant). One sentence could be assigned to more than one code if the cognitive or metacognitive contributions occurred during student discourses. Next, we used the clickstream analysis (CSA) to analyze the behavioral dimension, including resource management, concept mapping and observation. The unit of analysis of the behavior was a participant’s mouse clicking or moving operation on the platform. We kept the cognitive , metacognitive and behavioral codes for each group in the excel files according to the time framework.

It is worth mentioning the analysis process was iterative. The first author coded Week 5’s transcribed data first and proposed an initial coding scheme. Then, other four authors re-recorded Week 5’s data in terms of the initial coding scheme, had multiple meetings to solve discrepancies, and came up with the final coding scheme (see Table 3 ). Krippendorff’s ( 2004 ) alpha reliability was 0.735 among four authors at this phase’s analysis. Finally, all authors coded the whole dataset separately, cross-checked the analysis results, and consulted with the first author to solve discrepancies.

Finally, lag-sequential analysis (LSA) is used to examine the sequential contingencies of cognitive, metacognitive and behavioral events, including the direct (lag = 1) and indirect (lag = 2) sequential transitions between codes (Chen et al., 2017 ). We focused on the transitions between three different dimensions (i.e., cognitive, metacognitive, and behavioral) and between three different codes under each dimension (see Table 3 ). There were 9 possible transition patterns among three dimensions, as well as 9 possible transition patterns under each dimension. By checking the total dataset of 12 excel files, we guaranteed that a sufficient data volume included by checking that the total dataset was at least 10 times the number of transition cells (Lämsä et al., 2020 ). Here, we used the Yule’Q to calculate the strength a code transitioned to another code. Yule’s Q represents the strength of transitional association because it controls for base numbers of contributions and is descriptively useful (with a range from − 1 to + 1 and 0 indicating no association). To detect the differences of groups’ patterns, we specifically examined three types of sequential transitions, including the transitions between three dimensions, between three codes under each dimension, and nine codes across three dimensions.

Complementary to the collaborative pattern analysis, we evaluated groups’ collaborative performances and perceptions. The evaluations of concept map artifacts as the primary, complemented with the solution write-ups, were conducted as the group performances. Adapting a previous assessment approach (Novak & Cañas, 2008 ), we used product analysis (PA) to assess the concept map in terms of three dimensions, i.e., propositions, hierarchy, and examples, and used the cognitive dimension in the coding scheme (see Table 3 ) to analyze the groups’ write-up scores. The unit of analysis was a sentence separated by a semicolon or a period in the write-up that represented a complete idea. Two authors scored the concept maps and write-ups independently and reached an agreement if there were differences. Next, we analyzed students’ questionnaire responses to demonstrate student perceptions about group collaborative quality, their engagement level, and the usefulness of the scaffoldings.

An overview of the comparison of three groups’ social , cognitive , metacognitive , and behavioral contributions during four weekly CPS is presented in the distribution boxplots (see Fig.  3 ). Group A had the lowest level of social and cognitive contribution; Group B had the highest level of cognitive and behavioral contribution and the lowest level of metacognitive contribution; Group C had the highest social and metacognitive contribution and the lowest level of behavioral contribution. The overall results indicate rather complicated collaborative results of three groups. We make further examinations of sequential transitions of each dimension and across dimensions as followings to better understand the collaborative patterns.

Three groups’ distribution boxplots of social, cognitive, metacognitive and behavioral frequencies. Each box represents students’ code frequencies (minimum, median, and maximum values) throughout four weeks on one dimension

Social dimension

First, on the social dimension, Group C was the most active group throughout the four weekly CPS activities, reflected by the highest frequency of student interactions ( freq.  = 735, M  = 183.75, SD  = 26.85), followed by Group B ( freq.  = 628, M  = 157.00, SD  = 23.04) and Group A ( freq.  = 520, M  = 130.00, SD  = 5.16) (see Fig.  4 ). Group C had the highest level of average degree ( outdegree  = 21.9, indegree  = 21.7), followed by Group B ( outdegree  = 20.3, indegree  = 20.4) and Group A ( outdegree  = 18.6, indegree  = 18.6). Group C also had the highest CV value ( CV  = 1.42), indicating a high level of dispersion of students’ interaction frequencies, followed by Group B ( CV  = 0.50) and Group A ( CV  = 0.15). Overall, Group C was the most interactive group among three groups, followed by Group B and Group A (see Fig.  4 ).

Social interaction network of three groups. The node size represented interaction frequencies; the number on the tie represented the interaction a student had to another student; the direction of a tie should be read from the node with the same color of the tie to the node with a different color (e.g., C3 sent 244 replies to C2)

Cognitive dimension

On the cognitive dimension, Group B had the highest frequency of cognitive contribution throughout four weekly CPS activities ( freq . = 610, M  = 152.50, SD  = 32.28), closely followed by Group C ( freq . = 575, M  = 143.75, SD  = 31.62), and Group A ( freq . = 397, M  = 99.25, SD  = 17.84). The sequential analysis results showed that all three groups had the direct transitions on the cognitive dimension (i.e., Cog-  >  Cog ), where Group C had the strongest value ( M  = 0.61, SD  = 0.10), followed by Group A ( M  = 0.53, SD  = 0.18) and Group B ( M  = 0.26, SD  = 0.23) (see Table 4 ). Group C also consistently had the strong transition on cognitive dimension, reflected by the small SD value. In addition, results of ANOVAs and ANCOVAs showed a significant difference among three groups on the Cog-  >  Cog transition ( p  < 0.05), where Group C had the highest value, regardless of taking time as covariate or not.

We further analyzed the direct transitional patterns between KS , KM , and KD under the cognitive dimension. All three groups had the direct transitions from KS to KS and KM to KM , but no transition or low-level KD-  >  KD transition (see Table 5 ). Among three groups, Group C had the strongest KS-  >  KS transition ( M  = 0.48, SD  = 0.22) and KM-  >  KM transition ( M  = 0.39, SD  = 0.32). Group A and Group B had no direct KM-  >  KD transition; in contrast, Group C had the strongest KM-  >  KD transition ( M  = 0.52, SD  = 0.62). Results of ANOVAs and ANCOVAs (taking time as the covariate) indicated significant differences among three groups on the KD-  >  KD transition ( F  = 4.87, p  < 0.05). Further examinations showed a significant difference between Group A and Group B, regardless of taking time as the covariate or not ( p  < 0.05) (see Table 5 ).

Metacognitive dimension

On the metacognitive dimension, Group C had highest metacognitive contributions ( freq . = 523, M  = 130.75, SD  = 25.36), followed by Group A ( freq . = 473, M  = 118.25, SD  = 35.34) and Group B ( freq . = 411, M  = 102.75, SD  = 29.58). The sequential analysis results showed that all three groups had the direct metacognitive transitions (see Table 4 ). Among three groups, Group C had the strongest metacognitive transition ( M  = 0.46, SD  = 0.13), followed by Group A ( M  = 0.36, SD  = 0.33) and Group B ( M  = 0.14, SD  = 0.46) (see Table 4 ). Group C also consistently had the strong transition, reflected by the small SD value. Multiple ANOVAs and ANCOVAs indicated no significant differences between three groups, regardless of taking time as the covariate or not.

We further analyzed the direct transitional patterns between TU, GSP, and MR . All three groups had the direct transitions from TU to TU , GSP to GSP , and MR to MR (see Table 6 ). Group A had the highest GSP-  >  GSP transition ( M  = 0.68, SD  = 0.12) and the highest MR-  >  MR transition ( M  = 0.72, SD  = 0.10); while Group B had the highest TU-  >  TU transition ( M  = 0.86, SD  = 0.12). There were no direct transitions between two different codes on the metacognitive dimension. The multiple ANOVA and ANCOVA analyses (taking time as the covariate) found no significant differences among the three groups on any metacognitive dimension transitions.

Behavioral dimension

On the behavioral dimension, Group B had the highest frequency ( freq.  = 818, M  = 204.50, SD  = 19.46), followed by Group A ( freq . = 533, M  = 133.25, SD  = 47.93) and Group C ( freq . = 503, M  = 125.75, SD  = 37.08). The sequential analysis results showed that all three groups had the direct behavioral transitions (i.e., Beh-  >  Beh ), where Group C had the strongest Beh-  >  Beh transition ( M  = 0.40, SD  = 0.03), followed by Group B ( M  = 0.40, SD  = 0.15), and Group A ( M  = 0.30, SD  = 0.17) (see Table 4 ). Group C also consistently had the strong transition, reflected by the small SD value. In addition, multiple ANOVAs and ANCOVAs indicated no significant differences among three groups.

We further analyzed the direct transitional patterns between RM, CM, and OB . Multiple ANOVA analyses showed that there were significant differences between three groups on OB-  >  CM transition ( F  = 6.89, p  = 0.02), where Group C had the strongest OB-  >  CM transition ( M  = 0.20, SD  = 0.24). Further examination indicated significant differences of OB-  >  CM transition between Group A and Group B ( p  < 0.05) and between Group A and Group C ( p  < 0.05), regardless of taking time as the covariate or not (see Table 7 ).

We further examined the sequential transitions between 9 codes across three dimensions (see Fig.  5 ). Group A had 12 types of direct sequential transitions (lag = 1), with the strongest transition of TU-  >  TU ( Yule’Q  = 0.56), followed by KS-  >  KS ( Yule’Q  = 0.50) and MR-  >  MR ( Yule’Q  = 0.50); Group A had 9 types of indirect sequential transitions (lag = 2), with the strongest transition of MR-  >  MR ( Yule’Q  = 0.56), followed by GSP-  >  GSP ( Yule’Q  = 0.51), and KM-  >  KM ( Yule’Q  = 0.46). Group B had 12 types of direct sequential transitions (lag = 1), with the strongest transition of RM-  >  RM ( Yule’Q  = 0.79), KS-  >  KS ( Yule’Q  = 0.49) and MR-  >  MR ( Yule’Q  = 0.48); Group B had 14 types of indirect sequential transitions (lag = 2), with the strongest transition of RM-  >  RM ( Yule’Q  = 0.71), KS-  >  KD ( Yule’Q  = 0.46) and TU-  >  TU ( Yule’Q  = 0.40). Group C had 13 types of direct sequential transitions (lag = 1), with the strongest transition of MR-  >  MR ( Yule’Q  = 0.66), KM-  >  KM ( Yule’Q  = 0.60) and GSP-  >  GSP ( Yule’Q  = 0.48); Group C had 12 types of indirect sequential transitions (lag = 2), with the strongest transition of KM-  >  KM ( Yule’Q  = 0.50), MR-  >  MR ( Yule’Q  = 0.35), RM-  >  RM ( Yule’Q  = 0.32) and TU-  >  TU ( Yule’Q  = 0.32).

Direct and indirect sequential transitions across nine codes. The node size represents the average code frequency of the groups throughout four CPS activities. The values on the solid and dashed lines represent Yule’s Q values when lag is set to 1 and 2

Group performances and perceptions

Group C had the best collaborative performance among three groups. Group C ( M  = 89.75, SD  = 34.95) ranked first among three groups of the concept map performance, followed by Group A ( M  = 88.50, SD  = 24.15) and Group B ( M  = 65.00, SD  = 20.15). Regarding the solution write-ups, Group C ( M  = 15.00, SD  = 1.83) also ranked first, closely followed by Group B ( M  = 14.75, SD  = 2.50) and Group A ( M  = 11.50, SD  = 2.08). In addition, ANOVA results indicated that the scaffoldings had no statistical significances on students’ perceptions about the group’s collaborative quality on nine dimensions (see “Appendix B ” part 1), where Group C ( M  = 8.46, SD  = 1.03) reported the highest score, closely followed with Group B ( M  = 8.38, SD  = 0.97) and Group A ( M  = 7.97, SD  = 1.24). Group C’s students had the highest level of self-reported engagement score ( M  = 8.58, SD  = 0.67), followed by Group B ( M  = 8.25, SD  = 1.22), and Group A ( M  = 8.00, SD  = 1.21). In an open-ended question about knowledge worker role, students in Group C perceived themselves as the knowledge builder in most cases. For example, C3 reported “… most of the time, I think I was a knowledge builder… I integrated and synthesized others’ ideas… and finally we built knowledge together as a group .”. Students in Group B perceived themselves as the knowledge builder in half of cases and the knowledge user in the other half. For example, B1 reported “ in some cases, I use the knowledge my partners provided to build the concept map… occasionally, I reflected on what I have learned previously and build new knowledge through communicating with my partners ”. Students in Group A in most cases perceived themselves as knowledge user and seldom perceived themselves as knowledge builder. For example, A1 responded “ I think most of the time I merely use the knowledge or information I already have… directly to the concept map ”. Finally, no statistical significances were found among the three groups about the usefulness of the scaffolding. Group B ( M  = 8.25, SD  = 0.62) held the most positive attitude towards the usefulness of the scaffolding, followed by Group C ( M  = 7.67, SD  = 1.56), and Group A ( M  = 7.35, SD  = 0.88).

Discussions and implications

This quasi-experiment research designs collaborative problem-solving activities supported with the minimally-guided, task-oriented, and idea-oriented scaffoldings in an online platform, and uses a mixed-method to examine the effect of three scaffoldings on the CPS processes, performances and perceptions. Consistent with previous research (e.g., Hong, 2011 ; Wang et al., 2017 ; Zhang et al., 2009 ), the research results indicated that the idea-centered collaboration had the best effect on the CPS process. Group C, with the idea-oriented scaffolding, formed the most dense student–student interaction network, through which they intensively built knowledge together (reflected by the strong cognitive transition and transitions between KS, KM and KD codes), made group regulation for the knowledge building process (reflected by the highest metacognitive contributions and the strongest metacognitive transition), and intensively took actions to work collaboratively through concept mapping (reflected by the strongest behavioral transition and the diverse behavioral transitions involving CM) (see Fig.  5 ). Group C also achieved the highest level of collaborative performance, perceived the best group collaborative quality, and self-reported the highest level of engagement.

Second, the task-oriented scaffolding results in a relatively complicated collaborative outcome. Group B, with the task-oriented scaffolding, formed the second interactive network, through which they had a high yet discrete cognitive pattern (reflected by the highest level of the overall cognitive contribution but the lowest level of transition between cognitive codes), a low and discrete regulation for the problem-solving process (reflected by the lowest metacognitive contribution and transition), but actively took actions to solve problems on the platform (reflected by the highest behavioral frequency). Moreover, Group B had the lowest score of the concept map but the highest score of the solution write-up, which implied that Group B’s students tended to merely focus on completing the tasks rather than exploring ideas and solutions on the concept map. Consistent with previous research, the result indicated that too much guidance would help students to stay on track of the task, but lessen the quality of open-ended inquiry, e.g., knowledge building (Dillenbourg, 2002 ).

Third, consistent with previous research, the result shows that CPS without additional instructional supports is less likely to lead to desirable outcomes (Kirschner et al., 2006 ). Group A, with the minimal-guided scaffolding, formed the least interactive network, through which students did not actively build knowledge to solve problems compared to the other two groups (reflected by the low-level cognitive contribution), had the middle level of group regulation (reflected by metacognitive contribution and transition), as well as the middle-level behavioral contribution and transition. The nine-code transition results showed that Group A had the least diverse behavioral transitions compared to the other two groups; notably, there were no behaviors connected to concept mapping (see Fig.  5 ). However, Group A achieved a good collaborative outcome regarding the concept mapping (ranked second among three groups). Overall, we conclude that the effect of three scaffoldings on the CPS process and quality is rather complicated.

In addition, student perceptions show that although the idea-oriented group has the best collaborative process and outcome, they do not perceive the idea-oriented scaffolding as useful as the task-oriented scaffolding. In contrast, although the task-oriented scaffolding may not be beneficial for achieving a high quality of problem-solving, students are more prone to employ the highly-structured, task-oriented, and goal-focused learning procedure in collaboration (Hong et al., 2011 ; Supanc et al., 2017 ). One explanation of this phenomenon is centered on China’s educational culture: when group collaboration is applied, it aims to complete clearly-defined tasks, solve well-structured problems, or achieve mastery of specific textbook knowledge with an efficiency that cannot be achieved by individuals (Hong, 2011 ). The idea-centered epistemological perspective is new to students because it sees knowledge as tentative, improvable and subject to change (Hong & Lin, 2019 ), such that student groups may experience difficulties in transforming the idea-centered epistemology to the actual collaborative process, particularly for students who are less experienced of this pedagogy (Avry et al., 2020 ; Ouyang & Chang, 2019 ; Rummel & Spada, 2005 ). In addition, the idea-oriented collaborative learning needs to go beyond fixed learning schedules to facilitate an emergent, self-organizing, and opportunistic way of working collectively, which is not easy for students to achieve in the short term (Hong & Sullivan, 2009 ; Zhang et al., 2009 ). Taking Group B, for example, Group B has a certain level of indirect transition in the cognitive dimension (between KM and KD) (see Fig.  5 ), and a low level of metacognitive regulation. This result indicates that students may need more time and better self-regulation skills to transform into the idea-centered form of collaborative learning. Pedagogical implications provided below can be beneficial for fostering CPS with the support of instructional scaffoldings.

Overall, the results indicate that the instructor should use idea-centered scaffolding to promote positive effects on the collaborative learning performance, process, and quality. For students who are prone to structured instructions, the task-oriented scaffolding can be used and modified by integrating idea-centered elements in order to help students achieve a better knowledge inquiry and construction. In addition, the instructor should make better preparations and take more time to situate students in the idea-centered knowledge building pedagogy (Lin & Reigeluth, 2016 ), particularly for students who are new to this pedagogy. The instructor should also encourage students to make shared references (Barron, 2000 ) and joint attentions (Çakır et al., 2009 ; Stahl, 2009 ) of knowledge building artifacts (e.g., the concept map), to develop self-regulation and group regulation skills (Winne et al., 2013 ), and to build collective responsibility during the CPS process (e.g., shared roles of knowledge builder) (Zhang et al., 2011 ). The educational culture, time constraint, and student regulation should be taken into consideration during CPS design and practice. The instructor should keep in mind that the collaborative mode of learning and instruction is not about giving students complete freedom; instead, the core philosophy is that student responsibility and agency of understanding, meaning-making, and knowledge building should be put at the center of educational practices (Bandura, 2001 ).

Conclusions, limitations, and future directions

The recent calls for educational reform have highlighted the importance of transforming student learning from knowledge acquisition to participation and creation where students not only participate in social, collaborative group activities but also build and advance group knowledge during the process (Paavola et al., 2004 ). CPS is a commonly used learning mode to make this educational transformation, and varied scaffoldings are used to support CPS in order to improve students’ knowledge building and problem-solving. In this research, we use a mixed-method to examine groups’ CPS processes and initially find that the idea-centered collaboration strengthens the connections between idea contribution, metacognitive regulation and behaviors related to knowledge artifact, which is beneficial for improving the CPS quality. This research contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the affordances and limitations of different scaffoldings on advancing collaborative learning. Although the results verify that the idea-centered scaffolding is the most useful strategy, this research was conducted in a small sample size of student groups during a relatively short time period. Future research should extend idea-centered collaboration to a longer-term and also expand the sample size of participating students, in order to verify the different effect of the scaffoldings on CPS. In addition, future instructional design should carefully consider the educational culture, time constraint, and learning regulation during the idea-centered CPS practices.

Availability of data and materials

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the first author.

Avry, S., Chanel, G., Bétrancourt, M., & Molinari, G. (2020). Achievement appraisals, emotions and socio-cognitive processes: how they interplay in collaborative problem-solving? Computers in Human Behavior, 107 , 106267.

Article   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 (2–3), 159–190.

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52 , 1–26.

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

Bereiter, C. (2005). Education and mind in the knowledge age . LEA.

Book   Google Scholar  

Borge, M., & Mercier, E. (2019). Towards a micro-ecological approach to CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 14 (2), 219–235.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18 , 32–42.

Çakır, M. P., Zemel, A., & Stahl, G. (2009). The joint organization of interaction within a multimodal CSCL medium. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 4 , 115–149.

Chang, C.-J., Chang, M.-H., Liu, C.-C., Chiu, B.-C., Fan Chiang, S.-H., Wen, C.-T., Hwang, F.-K., Chao, P.-Y., Chen, Y.-L., & Chai, C.-S. (2017). An analysis of collaborative problem-solving activities mediated by individual-based and collaborative computer simulations. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33 (6), 649–662.

Chen, B., Resendes, M., Chai, C. S., & Hong, H. Y. (2017). Two tales of time: uncovering the significance of sequential patterns among contribution types in knowledge-building discourse. Interactive Learning Environments, 25 (2), 162–175.

Damşa, C. I. (2014). The multi-layered nature of small-group learning: productive interactions in object-oriented collaboration. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 9 , 247–281.

Dick, W., & Cary, L. (1990). The systematic design of instruction (3rd ed.). . Harper Collins.

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. 1–15). Elsevier.

Dillenbourg, P. (2002). Over-scripting CSCL: the risks of blending collaborative learning with instructional design. In P. A. Kirschner (Ed.), Three worlds of CSCL. Can we support CSCL (pp. 61–91). Open Universiteit Nederland.

Engelmann, T., & Hesse, F. (2010). How digital concept maps about the collaborators’ knowledge and information influence computer-supported collaborative problem solving. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 5 (3), 299–319.

Fiore, S. M., Graesser, A., Greiff, S., Griffin, P., Gong, B., Kyllonen, P., Massey, C., O’Neil, H., Pellegrino, J., Rothman, R., & Soulé, H. (2017). Collaborative problem solving: considerations for the national assessment of educational progress . National Center for Education Statistics.

Fischer, F., & Mandl, H. (2005). Knowledge convergence in computer-supported collaborative learning: the role of external representation tools. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14 (3), 405–441.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2 (2–3), 87–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6

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.

Goodyear, P., Jones, C., & Thomson, K. (2014). Computer-supported collaborative learning: instructional approaches, group processes and educational designs. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (4th ed., pp. 439–451). Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Grbich, C. (2006). Qualitative data analysis: An introduction . SAGE Publications.

Hakkarainen, K., Paavola, S., Kangas, K., & Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P. (2013). Sociocultural perspectives on collaborative learning toward collaborative knowledge creation. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. M. O’Donnell (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 69–85). Routledge.

Hardwin, A., & Oshige, M. (2011). Self-regulation, coregulation, and socially shared regulation: exploring perspectives of social in self-regulated learning theory. Teachers College Record, 113 (2), 240–264.

Hargreaves, D. H. (1999). The knowledge-creating school. British Journal of Educational Studies, 47 (2), 122–144.

Henri, F. (1992). Computer conferencing and content analysis. In A. R. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing. The Najadan Papers (pp. 117–136). Springer-Verlag.

Hmelo-Silver, C. (2004). Problem-based learning: what and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16 (3), 235–266.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Barrows, H. S. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition and Instruction, 26 , 48–94.

Hmelo-Silver, C., & DeSimone, C. (2013). Problem-based learning: an instructional model of collaborative learning. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. M. O’Donnell (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 382–398). Routledge.

Hong, H. Y. (2011). Beyond group collaboration: facilitating an idea-centered view of collaboration through knowledge building in a science class of fifth-graders. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 20 (2), 246–260.

Hong, H. Y., Chang, Y. H., & Chai, C. S. (2014). Fostering a collaborative and creative climate in a college class through idea-centered knowledge-building. Instructional Science, 42 (3), 389–407.

Hong, H. Y., Chen, B., & Chai, C. S. (2016). Exploring the development of college students’ epistemic views during their knowledge building activities. Computers & Education, 98 , 1–13.

Hong, H. Y., Chen, F. C., Chai, C. S., & Chan, W. C. (2011). Teacher-education students’ views about knowledge building theory and practice. Instructional Science, 39 , 467–482.

Hong, H. Y., & Lin, P. Y. (2019). Elementary students enhancing their understanding of energy-saving through idea-centered collaborative knowledge-building scaffolds and activities. Educational Technology Research and Development, 67 (1), 63–83.

Hong, H. Y., & Sullivan, F. R. (2009). Towards an idea-centered, principle-based design approach to support learning as knowledge creation. Educational Technology Research and Development, 57 (5), 613–627.

Janssen, J., Cress, U., Erkens, G., & Kirschner, P. A. (2013). Multilevel analysis for the analysis of collaborative learning. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. M. O’Donnell (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 124–137). Routledge.

Järvelä, S., & Hadwin, A. F. (2013). New frontiers: regulating learning in CSCL. Educational Psychologist, 48 (1), 25–39.

Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., Hadwin, A., Järvenoja, H., Malmberg, J., Miller, M., & Laru, J. (2016). Socially shared regulation of learning in CSCL: understanding and prompting individual-and group-level shared regulatory activities. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 11 (3), 263–280.

Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45 , 65–94.

Kapur, M. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26 (3), 379–424.

Kapur, M. (2011). Temporality matters: advancing a method for analyzing problem-solving processes in a computer-supported collaborative environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 6 (1), 39–56.

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.

Krippendorff, K. (2004). Reliability in content analysis: some common misconceptions and recommendations. Human Communication Research, 30 , 411–433.

Lämsä, J., Hämäläinen, R., Koskinen, P., Viiri, J., & Mannonen, J. (2020). The potential of temporal analysis: Combining log data and lag sequential analysis to investigate temporal differences between scaffolded and non-scaffolded group inquiry-based learning processes. Computers & Education, 143 , 103674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103674

Lin, C. Y., & Reigeluth, C. M. (2016). Scaffolding wiki-supported collaborative learning for small-group projects and whole-class collaborative knowledge building. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 32 (6), 529–547.

Lin, F., & Chan, C. K. (2018). Examining the role of computer-supported knowledge-building discourse in epistemic and conceptual understanding. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34 (5), 567–579.

Malmberg, J., Järvelä, S., & Järvenoja, H. (2017). Capturing temporal and sequential patterns of self-, co-, and socially shared regulation in the context of collaborative learning. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49 , 160–174.

Novak, J. D. & Cañas, A. J. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them. Technical Report IHMC CmapTools , Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition. http://cmap.ihmc.us/Publications/ResearchPapers/TheoryUnderlyingConceptMaps.pdf

Opsahl, T. (2009). Structure and evolution of weighted networks . Doctoral dissertation, University of London. http://toreopsahl.com/publications/thesis/

Oshima, J., Oshima, R., Ohsaki, A., & Splichal, J. (2019). Collective knowledge advancement through shared epistemic agency: Socio-semantic network analyses. In K. Lund, G. P. Niccolai, E. Lavoué, C. Hmelo-Silver, G. Gweon, & M. Baker (Eds.), A wide lens: combining embodied, enactive, extended, and embedded learning in collaborative settings, 13th International Conference on Computer Supported Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 2019 (Vol. 1, pp. 57–64). International Society of the Learning Sciences.

Ouyang, F. (2021). Using three social network analysis approaches to understand computer-supported collaborative learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research . https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633121996477

Ouyang, F., & Chang, Y. H. (2019). The relationship between social participatory role and cognitive engagement level in online discussions. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50 (3), 1396–1414. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12647

Ouyang, F., Chang, Y. H., Scharber, C., Jiao, P., & Huang, T. (2020). Examining the instructor-student collaborative partnership in an online learning community course. Instructional Science, 48 (2), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-020-09507-4

Ouyang, F., & Scharber, C. (2017). The influences of an experienced instructor’s discussion design and facilitation on an online learning community development: a social network analysis study. The Internet and Higher Education, 35 , 33–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.07.002

Paavola, S., Lipponen, L., & Hakkarainen, K. (2004). Models of innovative knowledge communities and three metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research, 74 (4), 557–576.

Puntambekar, S. (2013). Chapter 12 Mixed methods for analyzing collaborative learning. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. M. O’Donnell (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 187–195). Routledge.

Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer-supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–197). Springer Verlag.

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.

Salomon, G. (1993). No distribution without individual cognition: a dynamic interactional view. In G. Salomon & D. Perkins (Eds.), Distributed cognitions: psychological and educational considerations (pp. 111–138). Cambridge University Press.

Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (2006). Knowledge building: theory, pedagogy, and technology. In K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). Cambridge University Press.

Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill structured problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4 (3–4), 181–201.

Stahl, G. (2009). Studying virtual math teams . Springer. http://GerryStahl.net/vmt/book

Stahl, G. (2017). Group practices: a new way of viewing CSCL. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 12 (1), 113–126.

Supanc, M., Völlinger, V. A., & Brunstein, J. C. (2017). High-structure versus low-structure cooperative learning in introductory psychology classes for student teachers: effects on conceptual knowledge, self-perceived competence, and subjective task values. Learning and Instruction, 50 , 75–84.

Suthers, D., Lund, K., Rosé, C. P., Teplovs, C., & Law, N. (2013). Productive multivocality in the analysis of group interactions . Springer.

Book   MATH   Google Scholar  

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes . Harvard University Press.

Wang, M., Cheng, B., Chen, J., Mercer, N., & Kirschner, P. A. (2017). The use of web-based collaborative concept mapping to support group learning and interaction in an online environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 34 , 28–40.

Winne, P. H., Hadwin, A. F., & Perry, N. E. (2013). Chapter 26. Metacognition and computer-supported collaborative learning. In C. E. Hmelo-Silver, C. A. Chinn, C. K. K. Chan, & A. M. O’Donnell (Eds.), The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 462–479). Routledge.

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.

Zemel, A., & Koschmann, T. (2013). Recalibrating reference within a dual-space interaction environment. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 8 (1), 65–87.

Zemel, A., Xhafa, F., & Çakir, M. (2009). Combining coding and conversation analysis of VMT chats. In G. Stahl (Ed), Studying virtual math teams , (pp. 532–568). Springer. http://GerryStahl.net/vmt/book

Zhang, J., Hong, H. Y., Scardamalia, M., Teo, C. L., & Morley, E. A. (2011). Sustaining knowledge building as a principle-based innovation at an elementary school. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 20 (2), 262–307.

Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective cognitive responsibility in knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18 (1), 7–44.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We appreciate the participants’ engagement in this research. We acknowledge the data collection and preliminary analysis work from Xu Li, Dan Sun, and Jiawen Zhou.

The research is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (61907038), Zhejiang province-level Student Research Train Program (SRTP) (2020R401011) of China, and 2021 University-level Educational Reformation Research Project for Undergraduate Education, Zhejiang University (zdjg21033).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

College of Education, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, 310058, Zhejiang, China

Fan Ouyang, Zixuan Chen, Mengting Cheng & Zifan Tang

Department of Education, National University of Tainan, Tainan, Taiwan

Chien-Yuan Su

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

FO led the research project, supervised the data analysis and wrote the manuscript. ZC, MC, and ZT conducted the data collection and analysis, C-YS supported the instructional process, crosschecked the data analysis results and revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Fan Ouyang or Chien-Yuan Su .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

We have no Conflict of Interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

An example of the CPS activity

Please design a set of online learning resources for a geography class in a senior high school. The theme focuses on “regional geography”. The resources can be demonstrated in the form of video, web page, animation, or e-book, etc. The purpose is to help students explore and learn the geographical knowledge of the area. The elements of regional geography include: natural geography (e.g., location, climate, topographic features, hydrology, natural resources, etc.) and cultural geography (e.g., population, city, traffic, industry, agriculture, regional development, etc.). The supporting PPT can be found in the resource section. During the design, the group needs to think about how to trigger students’ learning motivation in online learning contexts and procedures.

No scaffolding.

In order to complete the design task, you can consider to complete these sub-tasks. First, choose a typical geographical problem in a region (e.g., river management); then, design a learning resource to cover the topic related to the problem; finally, design a specific online learning situation using this online resource to help learners improve learning interest, increase knowledge, and improve performance. You can repeat these sub-tasks to complete the whole design.

In order to complete the design task, you can consider to build an instructional design model first (e.g., ADDIE: analysis, design, development, implementation, evaluation), then get familiar with the elements or concepts in this model, and finally design and develop the online learning resources based on this model.

Weekly questionnaire

Part 1: group collaborative quality.

Please score the quality of your group collaboration on the following nine dimensions. Do you agree with the following statement? Please score the quality on a scale of 1–10 with the lowest score of 1 and the highest score of 10.

Group members maintained a good mutual understanding of the problem to be solved.

Group members organized the communication well enough to keep continuous discourse with a minimum level of time lost.

Group members kept a high level of information sharing and collected as much information as possible related to the problem.

Group members gathered and evaluated alternatives of solutions before reaching a consensus.

Group members had a clear division of tasks, completed their tasks systematically, moved forward to the solution step by step, and set clear goals or guidance for the sub-tasks.

Group members had a reasonable time management, properly monitored the remaining time during the collaboration, and assured enough time for the remaining tasks.

Group members used the technologies smoothly, mastered basic technical skills, and made good use of various functions of the platform.

Group members interacted with each other in a high quality, respected and encouraged each other to work together, and contributed their own ideas.

Group members actively contributed to the final group solution and fully used their knowledge and skills during the process.

Part 2: Student engagement level

Please score your engagement level on a scale of 1 to 10, with the lowest score of 1 and the highest score of 10.

What is your contribution in the CPS activities? Please give an example to provide evidence.

What knowledge worker role did you take in the CPS process, if you have to choose one: a knowledge learner (to learn new knowledge), a knowledge user (to apply existing knowledge), or a knowledge builder (to summarize, synthesize, and build new knowledge). Why? Please give an example to provide evidence.

Part 3: The usefulness of the scaffolding

For group A:

The instructor scaffolded the group collaboration through an online platform with general technical and organizational supports. Did you think the scaffold was useful for the group work? Please score it on a scale of 1–10, with the lowest score of 1 and the highest score of 10, and give detailed reasons of the score.

For group B:

The instructor scaffolded the group collaboration through a task-oriented strategy on the platform. Did you think the scaffold was useful for the group work? Please score it on a scale of 1–10 with the lowest score of 1 and the highest score of 10, and give detailed reasons of the score.

For group C:

The instructor scaffolded the group collaboration through an idea-oriented strategy on the platform. Did you think the scaffold was useful for the group work? Please score it on a scale of 1–10 with the lowest score of 1 and the highest score of 10, and give detailed reasons of the score.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Ouyang, F., Chen, Z., Cheng, M. et al. Exploring the effect of three scaffoldings on the collaborative problem-solving processes in China’s higher education. Int J Educ Technol High Educ 18 , 35 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00273-y

Download citation

Received : 04 March 2021

Accepted : 12 May 2021

Published : 14 July 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00273-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Collaborative problem-solving
• Instructional scaffolding
• Task-oriented scaffolding
• Idea-oriented scaffolding
• Online collaborative learning
• Higher education

Improving collaborative problem-solving competency through information systems in physics education

[email protected]

[email protected]

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data
• Peer Review
• Reprints and Permissions
• Cite Icon Cite
• Search Site

Fabien Kunis , Maya Gaydarova , Ivelina Kotseva; Improving collaborative problem-solving competency through information systems in physics education. AIP Conf. Proc. 11 December 2023; 2939 (1): 050002. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0178545

Download citation file:

• Ris (Zotero)
• Reference Manager

Today's challenges increasingly impact education, a crucial pillar of modern society. New forms of active learning and challenges to education systems have been increasingly discussed, researched, and explored since the 21st century. Key global organizations such as UNESCO, European Union, and OECD note the need to reflect the skills and competencies of the 21st century according to relevant national educational programs. Collaborative problem solving was selected by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) as a key competence, which was examined in the 2015 PISA international survey. Extensive international studies indicate that collaborative problem solving is crucial for successfully integrating adolescents into society and the workforce. The aim of the study is researching the possibilities of forming collaborative problem-solving competency in a school physics course. Students worldwide have been isolated for a long time because of the coronavirus. This isolation is a serious prerequisite for the deteriorating social skills of students. Lack of communication can lead to impaired teamwork skills. Therefore, our goal is to explore information systems opportunities for testing and improving collaborative problem-solving competency. A methodology has been proposed for implementing the collaborative problem solving in the school course in physics. The study has been carried out to test the information system we have developed and its ability to improve students collaborative problem-solving skills. Students from seventh to tenth grade are tested according to the established methodology for determining their competence level for collaborative problem solving. The results are summarized and analyzed.

Sign in via your Institution

Citing articles via, publish with us - request a quote.

Sign up for alerts

• Online ISSN 1551-7616
• Print ISSN 0094-243X
• For Researchers
• For Librarians
• For Advertisers
• Our Publishing Partners  
• Physics Today
• Conference Proceedings
• Special Topics

pubs.aip.org

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use

Connect with AIP Publishing

This feature is available to subscribers only.

Sign In or Create an Account

• Collaborative Problem Solving® »

Collaborative Problem Solving® (CPS)

At Think:Kids, we recognize that kids with challenging behavior don’t lack the will  to behave well. They lack the  skills  to behave well.

Our Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS) approach is proven to reduce challenging behavior, teach kids the skills they lack, and build relationships with the adults in their lives.

Anyone can learn Collaborative Problem Solving, and we’re here to help.

What is Collaborative Problem Solving?

Kids with challenging behavior are tragically misunderstood and mistreated. Rewards and punishments don’t work and often make things worse. Thankfully, there’s another way. But it requires a big shift in mindset.

Helping kids with challenging behavior requires understanding why they struggle in the first place. But what if everything we thought was true about challenging behavior was actually wrong? Our Collaborative Problem Solving approach recognizes what research has pointed to for years – that kids with challenging behavior are already trying hard. They don’t lack the will to behave well. They lack the skills to behave well.

Learn More About the CPS Approach

Kids do well if they can.

CPS helps adults shift to a more accurate and compassionate mindset and embrace the truth that kids do well if they can – rather than the more common belief that kids would do well if they simply wanted to.

Flowing from this simple but powerful philosophy, CPS focuses on building skills like flexibility, frustration tolerance and problem solving, rather than simply motivating kids to behave better. The process begins with identifying triggers to a child’s challenging behavior and the specific skills they need help developing.  The next step involves partnering with the child to build those skills and develop lasting solutions to problems that work for everyone.

The CPS approach was developed at Massachusetts General Hospital a top-ranked Department of Psychiatry in the United States.  It is proven to reduce challenging behavior, teach kids the skills they lack, and build relationships with the adults in their lives. If you’re looking for a more accurate, compassionate, and effective approach, you’ve come to the right place. Fortunately, anyone can learn CPS. Let’s get started!

Bring CPS to Your Organization

Attend a cps training.

6 out of 10 teachers report reduced stress.

Significant reductions in parents’ stress.

74% average reduction in use of seclusion.

73% reduction in oppositional behaviors during school.

Parents report improvements in parent-child interactions.

71% fewer self-inflicted injuries.

reduction in school office referrals.

Significant improvements in children’s executive functioning skills.

60% of children exhibited improved behavior 

Privacy overview.

Visualizing the Commognitive Processes of Collaborative Problem Solving in Mathematics Classrooms

• Regular Article
• Published: 02 September 2022
• Volume 32 , pages 615–628, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

• Jijian Lu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0208-9486 1 ,
• Shuqi Wu 1 ,
• Yuyang Wang 1 &
• Yiran Zhang   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6165-5022 1  

742 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

The ability of solving problems collaboratively has been increasingly significant. This research takes mathematics open-ended problems as the tasks and carries out collaborative problem solving with multi-machine video recording in the classroom environment aimed at 112 student pairs and 56 four-person student groups stemming from 224 students in the seventh grade. Based on the theory of commognition, this research develops an analytical framework for the performance of commognition in students’ collaborative problem solving and provides several criteria for the marginalization of commognition. Through visual analysis and representation, the results show that the capacity of group meta-level commognition is lower than that of pairs, the male has better commognitive performance than the female, and group marginalization is more serious than that of pairs.

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Exploring collaborative problem solving in virtual laboratories: a perspective of socially shared metacognition

Hengtao Tang, Okan Arslan, … Tugba Kamali-Arslantas

What affordances do open-ended real-life tasks offer for sharing student agency in collaborative problem-solving?

Juuso Henrik Nieminen, Man Ching Esther Chan & David Clarke

The social essentials of learning: an experimental investigation of collaborative problem solving and knowledge construction in mathematics classrooms in Australia and China

Man Ching Esther Chan, David Clarke & Yiming Cao

Ben-Zvi, D., & Sfard, A. (2007). Ariadne’s thread, daedalus’ wings and the learners autonomy. Education Et Didactique, 1 (3), 117–134.

Article   Google Scholar  

Best, M., Price, D., & McCallum, F. (2015). ‘Go over there and look at the pictures in the book’: An investigation of educational marginalisation, social interactions and achievement motivation in an alternative middle school setting. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19 (4), 422–434.

Cai, H., & Gu, X. (2015). Design of scaffolding learning task and group cognition in collaborative problem solving learning. Open Education Research, 4 , 81–88. ( in Chinese )

Google Scholar  

Cai, H., & Gu, X. (2017). Study on the influencing factors of intervention effectiveness in cooperative problem solving learning. E-Education Research, 38 (6), 103–110. ( in Chinese )

Care, E., Scoular, C., & Griffin, P. (2016). Assessment of collaborative problem solving in education environments. Applied Measurement in Education, 29 (4), 250–264.

Chen, O., Castro-Alonso, J. C., Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2018). Extending cognitive load theory to incorporate working memory resource depletion: Evidence from the spacing effect. Educational Psychology Review, 30 (2), 483–501.

Clarke, D. J. (2011). Open-ended tasks and assessment: The nettle or the rose. In B. Kaur & K. Y. Wong (Eds.), Assessment in the mathematics classroom (pp. 131–163). World Scientific Publishing.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Ding, N. (2009). Visualizing the sequential process of knowledge elaboration in computer-supported collaborative problem solving. Computers & Education, 52 (2), 509–519.

Gallagher, A. M., De Lisi, R., Holst, P. C., McGillicuddy-De Lisi, A. V., Morely, M., & Cahalan, C. (2000). Gender differences in advanced mathematical problem solving. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 75 (3), 165–190.

Gomez, E. A., Wu, D., & Passerini, K. (2010). Computer-supported team-based learning: The impact of motivation, enjoyment and team contributions on learning outcomes. Computers & Education, 55 (1), 378–390.

Hou, D. (2001). Approach on learning strategy solution to the problems of LAN-based collaboration. Distance Education in China . https://doi.org/10.13541/j.cnki.chinade.2001.09.002 . ( in Chinese )

Hou, H. T., & Wu, S. Y. (2011). Analyzing the social knowledge construction behavioral patterns of an online synchronous collaborative discussion instructional activity using an instant messaging tool: A case study. Computers & Education, 57 (2), 1459–1468.

Järvenoja, H., & Järvelä, S. (2009). Emotion control in collaborative learning situations: Do students regulate emotions evoked by social challenges. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79 (3), 463–481.

Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology . Sage Publications.

Lam, S. F., Jimerson, S., Kikas, E., Cefai, C., Veiga, F. H., Nelson, B., Hatzichristou, C., Polychroni, F., Basnett, J., Duck, R., Farrell, P., Liu, Y., Negovan, V., Shin, H., Stanculescu, E., Wong, B., Yang, H., & Zollneritsch, J. (2012). Do girls and boys perceive themselves as equally engaged in school? The results of an international study from 12 countries. Journal of School Psychology, 50 , 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.07.004

Liang, Y., Zhu, K., & Zhao, C. (2017). An empirical research on improving the depth of interaction through collaborative problem solving learning activities. E-Education Research, 294 (10), 87–99. ( in Chinese )

Lin, P. C., Hou, H. T., Wu, S. Y., & Chang, K. E. (2014). Exploring college students’ cognitive processing patterns during a collaborative problem-solving teaching activity integrating Facebook discussion and simulation tools. The Internet and Higher Education, 22 , 51–56.

Lu, J., Zhang, X., & Stephens, M. (2019). Visualizing the commognitive processes in computer-supported one-to-one tutoring. Interactive Learning Environments, 27 (5–6), 645–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1610452

Lu, J., Tao, Y., Xu, J., & Stephens, M. (2020). Commognitive responsibility shift and its visualizing in computer-supported one-to-one tutoring. Interactive Learning Environments, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2020.1777167

Lubienski, S. T., Ganley, C. M., Makowski, M. B., Miller, E. K., & Timmer, J. D. (2021). “Bold problem solving”: A new construct for understanding gender differences in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 52 (1), 12–61.

Morgeson, F. P., Reider, M. H., & Campion, M. A. (2005). Selecting individuals in team settings: The importance of social skills, personality characteristics, and teamwork knowledge. Personnel Psychology, 58 (3), 583–611.

Namkung, J. M., Peng, P., & Lin, X. (2019). The relation between mathematics anxiety and mathematics performance among school-aged students: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 89 (3), 459–496.

Ngin, C. S. (2018). Examining a teacher’s use of multiple representations in the teaching of percentages: A commognitive perspective (pp. 591–598). Mathematics Education Research Group of Australasia.

O’Neill, T. A., Goffin, R. D., & Gellatly, I. R. (2012). The knowledge, skill, and ability requirements for teamwork: Revisiting the teamwork-KSA test’s validity. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 20 (1), 36–52.

OECD. (2017). PISA 2015 results (volume v): Collaborative problem solving, PISA . OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264285521-en

Book   Google Scholar  

Polya, G., & Conway, J. H. (2011). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method . Princeton University Press.

Prast, E. J., Van de Weijer-Bergsma, E., Miočević, M., Kroesbergen, E. H., & Van Luit, J. E. (2018). Relations between mathematics achievement and motivation in students of diverse achievement levels. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 55 , 84–96.

Rittle-Johnson, B., Farran, D. C., & Durkin, K. L. (2021). Marginalized students’ perspectives on instructional strategies in middle-school mathematics classrooms. The Journal of Experimental Education, 89 (4), 569–586. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2020.1728513

Sfard, A. (2007). When the rules of discourse change, but nobody tells you: Making sense of mathematics learning from a commognitive standpoint. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16 (4), 565–613. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400701525253

Sfard, A. (2008). Thinking as communicating: Human development, the growth of discourses, and mathematizing . Cambridge University Press.

Sfard, A. (2012). Introduction: Developing mathematical discourse—some insights from communicational research. International Journal of Educational Research, 51–52 , 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2011.12.013

Sfard, A. (2020). Commognition. In S. Lerman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of mathematics education. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15789-0_100031

Shan, M. (2015). Analysis of the emotional supporting framework for computer supported collaborative problem solving. Open Education Research, 21 (4), 99–105. ( in Chinese )

Stoet, G., & Geary, D. C. (2015). Sex differences in academic achievement are not related to political, economic, or social equality. Intelligence, 48 , 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2014.11.006

Tian, J., Zhang, P., Wang, K., & Wang, Y. (2004). Research on expert opinion integration model based on Delphi method. System Engineering Theory and Practice, 1 , 57–69. ( in Chinese )

Voyer, D., & Voyer, S. D. (2014). Gender differences in scholastic achievement: A meta- analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 140 , 1174–1204. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036620

Webb, N. M. (1982). Group composition, group interaction, and achievement in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74 (4), 475–484. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.74.4.475

Webb, N. M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22 (5), 366–389.

Zhou, J., & Lu, J. (2017). Collaborative problem solving task of PISA2015 and ATC21s and its enlightenment to mathematics education. Math Teaching in Middle Schools, 10 , 64–66. ( in Chinese )

Zhu, Z. (2007). Gender differences in mathematical problem solving patterns: A review of literature. International Education Journal, 8 (2), 187–203.

Download references

This research was funded by the NSFC project (62077041) of China.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Jing Hengyi School of Education, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou, China

Jijian Lu, Shuqi Wu, Yuyang Wang & Yiran Zhang

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yiran Zhang .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors report there are no potential conflict of interests to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

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

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Lu, J., Wu, S., Wang, Y. et al. Visualizing the Commognitive Processes of Collaborative Problem Solving in Mathematics Classrooms. Asia-Pacific Edu Res 32 , 615–628 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-022-00681-2

Download citation

Accepted : 21 August 2022

Published : 02 September 2022

Issue Date : October 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-022-00681-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Commognition
• Collaborative problem solving
• Gender differences
• Marginalization
• Visual analysis
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research