The Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회지시리즈A:수학교육)

Korean Society of Mathematical Education (한국수학교육학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Analysis of Collaborative Utterances among Elementary Students in Problem-Solving Process

문제 해결 과정에서 나타나는 초등학생들의 협력적 발화 특성 분석

  • Received : 2018.07.25
  • Accepted : 2018.08.29
  • Published : 2018.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This is a case study that defined collaborative utterances and analyzed how they appear in the problem-solving process when 5th-grade students solved problems in groups. As a result, collaborative utterances consist of an interchange type and a deliver type and the interchange type is comprised of two process: the verification process and the modification process. Also, in groups where interchange type collaborative utterances were generated actively and students could reach an agreement easily, students applied the teacher's help to their problem-solving process right after it was provided and could solve problems even though they had some mathematics errors. In interchange-type collaborative utterances, each student's participation varies with their individual achievement. In deliver-type collaborative utterances, students who solved problems by themselves participated dominantly. The conclusions of this paper are as follows. First, interchange-type collaborative utterances fostered students' active participation and accelerated students' arguments. Second, interchange-type collaborative utterances positively influenced the problem-solving process and it is necessary to provide problems that consider students' achievement in each group. Third, groups should be comprised of students whose individual achievements are similar because students' participation in collaborative utterances varies with their achievement.

Keywords

References

  1. Baer, J. (2003). Grouping and achievement in cooperative learning. College Teaching 51(4), 169-174. https://doi.org/10.1080/87567550309596434
  2. Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 9(4), 403-436. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS0904_2
  3. Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 12(3), 307-359. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1203_1
  4. Chiu, M. M. (2000). Group problem‐solving processes: Social interactions and individual actions. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 30(1), 26-49. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5914.00118
  5. Chiu, M. M. (2008). Flowing toward correct contributions during group problem solving: A statistical discourse analysis. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 17(3), 415-463. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400802224830
  6. Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M. J., Blaye, A. & O'Malley, C. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In E. Spada & P. Reiman (Eds.), Learning in humans and Machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189-211). Oxford: Elsevier.
  7. Erkens, G. (2004). Dynamics of coordination in collaboration. In van der Linden J. & Renshaw P. (Eds.), Dialogic learning (pp. 191-216). Dordrecht: Springer.
  8. Fawcett, L. M. (2002). The effect of peer collaboration on children's probl em‐solving ability. Retrieved on August 20, 2017 from http://ro.ecu.edu.au/these_hons/921
  9. Forman, E. A. & Cazden, C. B. (1985). Exploring Vygotskian perspectives in education: the cognitive value of peer interaction. In Wertsch, J. V. (Eds.), Culture, communication and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 323-347). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  10. Hersberger, J. (1995). On my mind: cooperative groups can and often should be homogeneous. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 1(6), 436-438.
  11. Johnson, D. W., Skon, L. & Johnson, R. (1980). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic conditions on children’s problem-solving performance. American Educational Research Journal 17(1), 83-93. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312017001083
  12. Kim, S. J., Cha, J. E. & Oh, J. H. (2011). Utterance factors and utterance type. Korean Semantics, 36, 91-118.
  13. Kong, H. J. & Shin, H. K. (2005). An analysis of communication means in the elementary mathematical small group cooperative learning. Journal of Korea Society of Mathematics Education 9(2), 181-200.
  14. Kumpulainen, K. & Kaartinen, S. (2003). The interpersonal dynamics of collaborative reasoning in peer interactive dyads. The Journal of Experimental Education 71(4), 333-370. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220970309602069
  15. Langer-Osuna, J. M. (2016). The social construction of authority among peers and its implications for collaborative mathematics problem solving. Mathematical Thinking and Learning 18(2), 107-124. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986065.2016.1148529
  16. Lee, M. H. & Park, Y. H. (2004). Analysis for the influence of cooperative learning in small-group on children’s mathematics learning. A: The Mathematical Education 43(1), 51-74.
  17. Maienschein, J. (1993). Why collaborate?. Journal of the History of Biology 26(2), 167-183. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01061964
  18. Ministry of Education. (2015). Mathematics curriculum.. Ministry of Education Notice, No. 2015-74.
  19. Mugny, G. & Doise, W. (1978). Socio-cognitive conflict and structure of individual and collective performances. European Journal of Social Psychology 8(2), 181-192. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420080204
  20. Norris-Tirrell, D. (2012). Introduction: Assessing multiple dimensions of collaboration. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration 35(1), 4-10.
  21. OECD. (2013). PISA 2015 draft collaborative problem solving framework. Retrieved on May 2, 2016 from http://search.oecd.org/callsfortenders/Annex%20ID_PISA%202015%20Collaborative%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf
  22. Panitz, T. (1999). Collaborative versus cooperative learning: A comparison of the two concepts which will help us understand the underlying nature of interactive learning. Retrieved on March 29, 2017 from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED448443
  23. Partnership for 21st century skills. (2009). P21 framework definition. Retrieved on April 14, 2017 from http://www.p21.org/ storage/ documents/P21_Framework_Definitions.pdf
  24. Piaget, J. (2005). Language and thought of the child: Selected works (Vol 5). London: Routledge.
  25. Roschelle, J. & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In O'Malley C. (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning. NATO ASI Series (Series F: Computer and Systems Sciences) , (vol 128, pp. 69-97). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
  26. Schwarz, B. B., Neuman, Y. & Biezuner, S. (2000). Two wrongs may make a right. If they argue together!. Cognition and Instruction 18(4), 461-494. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532690XCI1804_2
  27. Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research 50(2), 315-342. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543050002315
  28. Slavin, R. E. (1991). Cooperative learning and group contingencies. Journal of Behavioral Education 1(1), 105-115. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00956756
  29. Stevens, R. J. & Slavin, R. E. (1995). The cooperative elementary school: Effects on students' achievement, attitudes, and social relations. American Educational Research Journal 32(2), 321-351. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032002321
  30. Summers, M. & Volet, S. (2010). Group work does not necessarily equal collaborative learning: evidence from observations and self-reports. European Journal of Psychology of Education 25(4), 473-492. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-010-0026-5
  31. Van Boxtel, C. (2004). Studying peer interaction from three perspectives. In van der Linden J., Renshaw P. (Eds), Dialogic learning (pp. 125-143). Dordrecht: Springer.
  32. Verba, M. & Winnykamen, F. (1992). Expert-novice interactions: Influence of partner status. European Journal of Psychology of Education 7(1), 61. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03172822
  33. Vygotsky, L. S. (2009). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process. (Translated by Jung, H. W.) Seoul: Hagisiseup. (original edition in 1978)
  34. Webb, N. M. (1982). Student interaction and learning in small groups. Review of Educational Research 52(3), 421-445. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543052003421
  35. Webb, N. M., Nemer, K. M., Chizhik, A. W., & Sugrue, B. (1998). Equity issues in collaborative group assessment: Group composition and performance. American Educational Research Journal 35(4), 607-651. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312035004607
  36. Webb, N. M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 22(5), 366-389. https://doi.org/10.2307/749186
  37. Wood, D. J. & Gray, B. (1991). Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 27(2), 139-162. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886391272001