Does group composition affect learning by invention?

Instructional Science

Volumn 40, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 711-730

  Wiedmann, Michael ^a,b   Leach, Ryan C ^a   Rummel, Nikol ^c   Wiley, Jennifer ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FREIBURG   (Germany)

^c RUHR UNIVERSITY BOCHUM   (Germany)

Author keywords

Collaborative learning; Collaborative problem solving; Group composition; Learning by invention; Mathematical ability

Indexed keywords

EID: 84862122869     PISSN: 00204277     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11251-012-9204-y     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183-198. doi: 10. 1016/j. learninstruc. 2006. 03. 001.
2. Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 307-359. doi: 10. 1207/S15327809JLS1203_1.
3. Canham, M., Wiley, J., & Mayer, R. (2011). When diversity in training improves dyadic problem solving. Applied Cognitive Psychology. doi: 10. 1002/acp. 1844.
4. DiSessa, A. A., Hammer, D., Sherin, B., & Kolpakowski, T. (1991). Inventing graphing: Meta-representational expertise in children. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 10, 117-160.
5. Dunbar, K. (1995). How scientists really reason: Scientific reasoning in real-world laboratories. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 365-395). Cambridge, MA: MIT.
6. Freudenthal, H. (1973). Mathematics as an educational task. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Reidel.
7. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Karns, K. (1998). High-achieving students' interactions and performance on complex mathematical tasks as a function of homogeneous and heterogeneous pairings. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 227-267. doi: 10. 3102/00028312035002227.
8. Gijlers, H., & De Jong, T. (2005). The relation between prior knowledge and students' collaborative discovery learning processes. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 264-282. doi: 10. 1002/tea. 20056.
9. Goldenberg, O., & Wiley, J. (2011). Quality, conformity, and conflict: Questioning the assumptions of Osborn's brainstorming technique. Journal of Problem Solving, 3(2). Retrieved on January 7, 2012 from http://docs. lib. purdue. edu/jps/vol3/iss2/5.
10. Gravemeijer, K., Lehrer, R., van Oers, B., & Verschaffel, L. (Eds.). (2003). Symbolizing, modelling and tool use in mathematics education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
11. Kapur, M. (2009). Productive failure in mathematical problem solving. Instructional Science, 38, 523-550. doi: 10. 1007/s11251-009-9093-x.
12. Kapur, M. (2012). Productive failure in learning the concept of variance. Instructional Science (this issue).
13. Kapur, M., & Bielaczyc, K. (2011). Designing for productive failure. The Journal of theLearning Sciences. Advance online publication. doi: 10. 1080/10508406. 2011. 591717.
14. Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Bolger, N. (1998). Data analysis in social psychology. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 233-265). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
15. Kroesbergen, E. H., van Luit, J. E. H., & Maas, C. J. (2004). Effectiveness of explicit and constructivist mathematics instruction for low-achieving students in the Netherlands. The Elementary School Journal, 104, 233-251. doi: 10. 1086/499751.
16. Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. M. (2003). Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics teaching, learning, and problem solving. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17. Mayer, R. E., & Greeno, J. G. (1972). Structural differences between learning outcomes produced by different instructional methods. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 165-173. doi: 10. 1037/h0032654.
18. OECD (2010). PISA 2009 at a Glance, OECD Publishing. doi: 10. 1787/9789264095298-en.
19. Paulus, P. (2000). Groups, teams and creativity: The creative potential of idea generating groups. International Journal of Applied Psychology, 49, 237-262. doi: 10. 1111/1464-0597. 00013.
20. Roll, I., Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2009). Helping students know 'further'-increasing the flexibility of students' knowledge using symbolic invention tasks. In N. A. Taatgen & H. van Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1169-1174). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
21. Schwartz, D. L. (1995). The emergence of abstract representations in dyad problem solving. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1, 321-354. doi: 10. 1207/s15327809jls0403_3.
22. Schwartz, D. L., & Martin, T. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 129-184. doi: 10. 1207/s1532690xci2202_1.
23. Stroebe, W., & Diehl, M. (1994). Why groups are less effective than their members: On productivity losses in idea-generating groups. European Review of Social Psychology, 5, 271-303. doi: 10. 1080/14792779543000084.
24. Webb, N. M. (1980). A process-outcome analysis of learning in group and individual settings. Educational Psychologist, 15, 69-83. doi: 10. 1080/00461528009529217.
25. Wiley, J., Jarosz, A, Cushen, P., Jensen, M., & Griffin, T. D. (2009, November). The power of three: Why the third person matters. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Boston, MA.