The Findings



With an intervention that introduced the explicit teaching of problem-solving strategies through collaborative, group problem-solving sessions and cognitive apprenticeship, a general positive shift in the students’ problem-solving patterns was observed. Students demonstrated a better planned and more thoughtful deployment of the taught strategies. These positive shifts in collaborative competences, cognitive competences, metacognitive processing and increased self-efficacy were positively correlated with attainment in problem solving in physics. However, this shift proved to be due to different mechanisms triggered in the different students.


Physics Problem solving Collaboration Metacognition Self-efficacy 


  1. Andriessen, J. (2006). Collaboration in computer conferencing. In A. M. O’Donnell, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, & G. Erkens (Eds.), Collaborative learning, reasoning and technology (pp. 197–231). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Artzt, A. F., & Armour-Thomas, E. (1992). Development of a cognitive-metacognitive framework for protocol analysis of mathematical problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 9, 137–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bazeley, P. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: Practical strategies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Blech, C., & Funke, J. (2010). You cannot have your cake and eat it, too: How induced goal conflicts affect complex problem solving. Open Psychology Journal, 3, 42–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by ‘collaborative learning’? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches (pp. 1–19). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  6. Docktor, J. L. (2009). Development and validation of a physics problem-solving assessment rubric. Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy,
  7. Docktor, J., & Heller, K. (2009). Assessment of student problem solving processes. In Proceedings of the 2009 physics education research conference.Google Scholar
  8. Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Ezzy, D. (2002). Qualitative analysis: Practice and innovation. Crow’s Nest, NSW: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  10. Gibson, W., & Brown, A. (2009). Working with qualitative data. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Greeno, J. G. (1997). On claims that answer the wrong question. Educational Researcher, 26(1), 5–17.Google Scholar
  12. Heller, K., & Heller, P. (1995). The competent problem solver: A strategy for solving problems in physics, Calculus version (2nd ed.). Minneapolis: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  13. Heller, K., & Heller, P. (2000). The competent problem solver for introductory physics: Calculus, McGraw-Hill Higher Education.Google Scholar
  14. Kanselaar, G., Erkens, G., Andriessen, J., Prangsma, M., Veerman, A., & Jaspers, J. (2002). Designing argumentation tools for collaborative learning. In: P. A. Kirschner, S. J. Buckingham Shum, & C. S. Carr (Eds.), Visualizing argumentation: Software tools for collaborative and educational sense-making (pp. 51–74). London: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  15. Kellehear, A. (1993). The unobtrusive researcher. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  16. Klieme, E. (2004). Assessment of cross curricular problem-solving competencies. In J. H. Moskowitz & M. Stephens (Eds.), Comparing learning outcomes. International assessments and education policy (pp. 81–107). London: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  17. Meijer, J., Veenman, M., & van Hout-Wolters, B. (2006). Metacognitive activities in text-studying and problem-solving: Development of taxonomy. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12(3), 209–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Piaget, J. (1977). The essential Piaget. Edited by Howard Gruber. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  19. Pόlya, G. (1957). How to solve it (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Reif, F. (1995). Millikan Lecture 1994: Understanding and teaching important scientific thought process. American Journal of Physics, 59, 891.Google Scholar
  21. Roschelle, J., & Teasley, S. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In C. E. O’Malley (Ed.), Computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 69–97). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Salas, E., & Fiore, S. M. (Eds.). (2004). Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  23. Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  25. Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Simon, H., & Newell, A. (1972). Human problem solving. Eaglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  27. van Someren, M. W. (1990). What’s wrong? Understanding beginners’ problems with Prolog. Instructional Science, 19(4–5), 257–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Veerman, A. L., Andriessen, J. E. B., & Kanselaar, G. (1999). Collaborative learning through computer-mediated argumentation. In C. Hoadley & J. Roschelle (Eds.), Proceedings of the third conference on computer supported collaborative learning (pp. 640–650). Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  29. Wirth, J., & Klieme, E. (2004). Computer-based assessment of problem solving competence. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy and Practice, 10(3), 329–345.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of SuffolkSuffolkUK
  2. 2.Institute of EducationUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations