Advertisement

Collaborative Learning to Improve Problem-Solving Skills: A Relation Affecting Through Attitude Toward Mathematics

  • Farzaneh SaadatiEmail author
  • Cristián Reyes
Chapter
Part of the Research in Mathematics Education book series (RME)

Abstract

Research on the effectiveness of collaborative learning approaches usually concentrates on individual performance as the primary indicator for a successful learning outcome. However, inconsistent success has been demonstrated for students’ outcomes after participating in a collaborative learning. In order to seek the reasons for this inconsistency, it is necessary to move beyond simple descriptions of the positive or negative impact of collaborative learning on students’ outcomes. This study aims to investigate whether students’ attitudes toward mathematics can affect their learning to solve non-routine mathematical problems through a collaborative learning approach. A group of 12 elementary teachers who participated in a professional development program for activating collaborative problem solving in mathematics classrooms voluntarily joined this study. The data were obtained from their 214 students (grades 3–8) at the beginning and the end of the school year. Results indicated that students with very positive or moderately positive levels of attitude performed better in comparison with students having negative attitudes toward mathematics, in all four stages of Polya’s problem-solving model, which includes understanding the problem, devising a plan, carrying out the plan, and looking back. Furthermore, students with different degrees of positive and negative attitudes toward mathematics showed meaningful differences in choosing the strategies and being aware of evaluating their solutions. The influence of attitude on learning is then a factor to be taken into account by educators and policymakers for considering appropriate strategies in order to improve the effectiveness of collaborative learning.

Keywords

Attitude toward mathematics Collaborative learning Problem-solving skills 

Notes

Acknowledgment

Funding from FONDEF ID14I20338 and PIA-CONICYT Basal Funds for Centers of Excellence Project FB0003 is gratefully acknowledged. FS is grateful to the support of CONICYT/Fondecyt Postdoctoral Project 3170673.

References

  1. Birman, B., Desimone, L., Garet, M., & Porter, A. (2000). Designing professional development that works. Educational Leadership, 57(8), 28–33.Google Scholar
  2. Blumenfeld, P. C., Marx, R. W., Soloway, E., & Krajcik, J. (1996). Learning with peers: From small group cooperation to collaborative communities. Educational Researcher, 25(8), 37–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bossert, S. T. (1988). Cooperative activities in the classroom. Review of Research in Education, 15(1), 225–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davidson, N., & Kroll, D. L. (1991). An overview of research on cooperative learning related to mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(5), 362–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. De Corte, E. (2004). Mainstreams and perspectives in research on learning (mathematics) from instruction. Applied Psychology, 53, 279–310.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2004.00172.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fawcett, L. M., & Garton, A. F. (2005). The effect of peer collaboration on children’s problem-solving ability. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(2), 157–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Felmer, P., & Perdomo-Díaz, J. (2016). Novice Chilean secondary mathematics teachers as problem solvers. In P. Felmer, E. Pehkonen, & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Posing and solving mathematical problems (pp. 287–308). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Felmer, P., Perdomo-Díaz, J., & Reyes, C. (2019). The ARPA experience in Chile: Problem solving for teachers’ professional development. In Mathematical problem solving (pp. 311–337). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Geary, D. C. (2008). An evolutionarily informed education science. Educational Psychologist, 43(4), 179–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hannula, M. S. (2015). Emotions in problem solving. In Selected regular lectures from the 12th international congress on mathematical education (pp. 269–288). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Krawec, J. L. (2014). Problem representation and mathematical problem solving of students of varying math ability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(2), 103–115.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412436976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Leroy, N., & Bressoux, P. (2016). Does amotivation matter more than motivation in predicting mathematics learning gains? A longitudinal study of sixth-grade students in France. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44, 41–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Marrongelle, K., Sztajn, P., & Smith, M. (2013). Scaling up professional development in an era of common state standards. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(3), 202–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, problem solving, cognition. New York: WH Freeman, Times Books, Henry Holt & Co.Google Scholar
  16. Mevarech, Z. R. (1999). Effects of metacognitive training embedded in cooperative settings on mathematical problem solving. The Journal of Educational Research, 92(4), 195–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. MINEDUC. (2012). Bases Curriculares Matemática; Ficha Bases Curriculares 2012. Ministry of Education Republic of Chile: Ministerio de Educación. Retrieved 2018 from http://www.curriculumenlineamineduc.cl/605/w3-article-21321.html
  18. Naizer, G. L., Bell, G. L., West, K., & Chambers, S. (2003). Inquiry science professional development with a science summer camp for immediate application. The Journal of Elementary Science Education, 15(2), 31–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. NCTM. (1980). An agenda for action: Recommendations for school mathematics. Retrieved, 2018, from http://www.nctm.org/standards/content.aspx?id=17279
  20. NCTM. (2000). In V. A. Reston (Ed.), Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  21. O’Donnell, A. M. (2006). The role of peers and group learning. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  22. OECD. (2015). Chile: Policy priorities for stronger and more equitable growth, OECD Series. Better Policies. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  23. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Developmen. (2012). Development co-operation report 2012. Paris: OECD Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1787/dcr-2012-enCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Paas, F., & Sweller, J. (2012). An evolutionary upgrade of cognitive load theory: Using the human motor system and collaboration to support the learning of complex cognitive tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 24(1), 27–45.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-011-9179-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Polya, G. (1957). How to solve it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Power, M., & Dalgleish, T. (2008). Cognition and emotion. From order to disorder (2nd ed.). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  27. Retnowati, E., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2017). Can collaborative learning improve the effectiveness of worked examples in learning mathematics? Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(5), 666–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ruffell, M., Mason, J., & Allen, B. (1998). Studying attitude to mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 35(1), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Saadati, F., & Cerda, M. (2019). Exploring strategies used to solve a non-routine problem by Chilean students; an example of “sharing chocolates”. Proceedings of the 11th congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education. Utrecht, The Netherlands (in press).Google Scholar
  30. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Metacognitive and epistemological issues in mathematical understanding. Teaching and Learning Mathematical Problem Solving: Multiple Research Perspectives, 89(4), 361–380.Google Scholar
  31. Smith, M. S., & Stein, M. K. (2011). Five practices for orchestrating productive mathematics discussions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  32. Webb, N. (1975). An exploration of mathematical problem-solving processes, ERIC. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED106148.pdf
  33. Webb, N. L. (1979). Processes, conceptual knowledge, and mathematical problem-solving ability. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 10(2), 83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Webb, N. M. (2009). The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zan, R., & Di Martino, P. (2007). Attitude toward mathematics: Overcoming the positive/negative dichotomy. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, Monograph, 3(2007), 157–168.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Advanced Research in Education, Institute of Education (IE) Universidad de ChileSantiagoChile

Personalised recommendations