Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.7468/mathedu.2018.57.3.271

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

Lee, Boram (Seoul Gangsol Elementary School)
Park, Mangoo (Seoul National University of Education)
Publication Information
The Mathematical Education / v.57, no.3, 2018 , pp. 271-287 More about this Journal
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
Collaborative interaction; Collaborative problem-solving; Collaborative utterances;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 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.
2 Verba, M. & Winnykamen, F. (1992). Expert-novice interactions: Influence of partner status. European Journal of Psychology of Education 7(1), 61.   DOI
3 Vygotsky, L. S. (2009). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process. (Translated by Jung, H. W.) Seoul: Hagisiseup. (original edition in 1978)
4 Webb, N. M. (1982). Student interaction and learning in small groups. Review of Educational Research 52(3), 421-445.   DOI
5 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.   DOI
6 Webb, N. M. (1991). Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 22(5), 366-389.   DOI
7 Wood, D. J. & Gray, B. (1991). Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 27(2), 139-162.   DOI
8 Baer, J. (2003). Grouping and achievement in cooperative learning. College Teaching 51(4), 169-174.   DOI
9 Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 9(4), 403-436.   DOI
10 Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences 12(3), 307-359.   DOI
11 Hersberger, J. (1995). On my mind: cooperative groups can and often should be homogeneous. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 1(6), 436-438.
12 Chiu, M. M. (2000). Group problem‐solving processes: Social interactions and individual actions. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 30(1), 26-49.   DOI
13 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.
14 Erkens, G. (2004). Dynamics of coordination in collaboration. In van der Linden J. & Renshaw P. (Eds.), Dialogic learning (pp. 191-216). Dordrecht: Springer.
15 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
16 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.
17 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.   DOI
18 Kim, S. J., Cha, J. E. & Oh, J. H. (2011). Utterance factors and utterance type. Korean Semantics, 36, 91-118.
19 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.
20 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.   DOI
21 Maienschein, J. (1993). Why collaborate?. Journal of the History of Biology 26(2), 167-183.   DOI
22 Kumpulainen, K. & Kaartinen, S. (2003). The interpersonal dynamics of collaborative reasoning in peer interactive dyads. The Journal of Experimental Education 71(4), 333-370.   DOI
23 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.   DOI
24 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.
25 Ministry of Education. (2015). Mathematics curriculum.. Ministry of Education Notice, No. 2015-74.
26 Mugny, G. & Doise, W. (1978). Socio-cognitive conflict and structure of individual and collective performances. European Journal of Social Psychology 8(2), 181-192.   DOI
27 Norris-Tirrell, D. (2012). Introduction: Assessing multiple dimensions of collaboration. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration 35(1), 4-10.
28 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
29 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
30 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
31 Piaget, J. (2005). Language and thought of the child: Selected works (Vol 5). London: Routledge.
32 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.
33 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.   DOI
34 Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research 50(2), 315-342.   DOI
35 Slavin, R. E. (1991). Cooperative learning and group contingencies. Journal of Behavioral Education 1(1), 105-115.   DOI
36 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.   DOI
37 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.   DOI