Relationships between sixth grade students’ cognitive development and their collaborative processes during solving numerical puzzle Sudoku
Published:
Mar 29, 2018
Keywords:
Collaborative learning problem solving arithmetic puzzle Sudoku cognitive development
Abstract
Collaborative learning is a subject that has occupied many researchers throughout the world. Many researchers have maintained that when students of all school stages, from kindergarten to higher education work in teams, this leads to high performance (Johnson, Skon, & Johnson, 1980), but also has a positive impact emotionally and psychologically (Schmitz & Winskel, 2008). However, there have been studies claiming that teamwork does not actually result in any substantive improvement in students’ efficiency (Samuelsson, 2010), or that only some students gain from this method of learning (Sears & Reagin, 2013). The present study explores how cognitive development relates to problem solving in pairs or individually, in students of the sixth grade in school using the numerical puzzle Sudoku. More specifically, the study explored four different types of pairs of two, according to the level of cognitive development (high – high, high – low, average – average and low – low) and three different types of units (high, average, low), all taken from sixth graders of a public elementary school. Additionally, the research studied whether solving Sudoku was more effective in pairs rather than individually. The sample of this research included thirteen sixth grade classes from a public elementary school in a city in Cyprus. The city was intentionally selected to facilitate the research. Two hundred twenty students completed the tool of cognitive development Group Assessment of Logical Thinking (GALT). Then, 60 students individually solved the Sudoku puzzle, while 160 students solved the puzzle in pairs. The results of the qualitative study showed that there were differences between the four types of pairs in terms of how they collaborated. Although students showed interest or even enthusiasm in solving the Sudoku puzzle, the majority of them did not work together so as to improve their performance. The results of the quantitative study confirmed that students failed to cooperate. The performance of the Individual Problem Solving Ability was not different among the four types of pairs. The majority of high-level cognitive development pairs started to solve the puzzle competitively. However, in the process they worked together to solve the puzzle correctly. They also behaved in an intensely self-centred way. In non-homogeneous pairs, low-performing students had a passive role in the group. Additionally, it seemed that the level of cooperation was related to high performance. The research demonstrated that students had difficulty in developing combinational thinking. This was the reason they could not solve the puzzle. Pairs did not cooperate, despite the fact that they had clear guidelines to do that. This finding should be a concern for teachers and the educational system of Cyprus, in general. The role of the teacher should be supportive in helping students overcome their difficulties, considering the theory of Vygotsky (2012) on systematic facilitating, development, and the Zone of Proximal Development.
Article Details
- How to Cite
-
Eleftheriou, M., & Christodoulou, N. (2018). Relationships between sixth grade students’ cognitive development and their collaborative processes during solving numerical puzzle Sudoku. Preschool and Primary Education, 6(1), 35–72. https://doi.org/10.12681/ppej.14109
- Issue
- Vol. 6 No. 1 (2018)
- Section
- Articles
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g. post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (preferably in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
References
Azmitia, M. (1988). Peer interaction and problem solving: When are two heads better than one?. Child development, 87-96.
Baek, Y., Kim, B., Yun, S., & Cheong, D. (2008, October). Effects of two types of sudoku puzzles on students’ logical thinking. In Proceedings of the second European conference on games based learning (pp. 19-24).
Barron, B. (2000). Achieving coordination in collaborative problem-solving groups. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 9(4), 403-436.
Bennett, N., & Cass, A. (1989). The effects of group composition on group interactive processes and pupil understanding. British Educational Research Journal, 15(1), 19-32.
Cai, J., & Lester, F. K. (2005). Solution representations and pedagogical representations in Chinese and US classrooms. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24(3), 221-237.
Case, R. (1987). Neo-Piagetian theory: Retrospect and prospect. International Journal of Psychology, 22(5-6), 773-791.
Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of educational research, 64(1), 1-35.
Damon, W., & Phelps, E. (1989). Critical distinctions among three approaches to peer education. International journal of educational research, 13(1), 9-19.
Davenport, P. (1999). Conceptual gain and successful problem-solving in primary school mathematics. Educational Studies, 25(1), 55-78.
Dillenbourg, P. (1999). Introduction: What do you mean by “collaborative learning”? In P. Dillenbourg (Ed.), Collaborative learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches (σσ. 1-19). Pergamon: Oxford.
Dillenbourg, P., Baker, M. J., Blaye, A., & O'Malley, C. (1995). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In E. Spada & P. Reiman (Eds.), Learning in Humans and Machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science. 189-211. Oxford: Elsevier.
Fernández, M., Wegerif, R., Mercer, N., & Rojas-Drummond, S. (2002). Re-conceptualizing" scaffolding" and the zone of proximal development in the context of symmetrical collaborative learning. Journal of Classroom Interaction,36(2/1), 40-54.
Forman, J., & Katsky, P. (1986). The group report: A problem in small group or writing processes?. The Journal of Business Communication (1973), 23(4), 23-35.
Forman, E. A., & Cazden, C. B. (1985). Exploring Vygotskian perspectives in education: The cognitive value of peer interaction. Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives, 323-347.
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(2), 227-267.
Goldman, S. R., Cosden, M. A., & Hine, M. S. (1992). Working alone and working together: Individual differences in the effects of collaboration on learning handicapped students' writing. Learning and Individual Differences, 4(4), 369-393.
Hayes, B. (2006). Unwed Numbers The mathematics of Sudoku, a puzzle that boasts" No math required!. American Scientist, 94(1), 12-15.
Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Fuchs, I., Sharabany, R., & Eisenberg, N. (1989). Students' interactive and noninteractive behaviors in the classroom: A comparison between two types of classrooms in the city and the Kibbutz in Israel. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14(1), 22-32.
Hill, G. W. (1982). Group versus individual performance: Are N+ 1 heads better than one?. Psychological bulletin, 91(3), 517.
Hogan, K.. Nastasi, B. K., & Pressley. M. (2000). Discourse patterns and collaborative scientific rea- soning in peer and teacher-guided discussions. Cognition and Instruction, 17, 379-432.
Holden, S. (2005). Sudoku: do you tear your hair out? Teacher: The National Education Magazine, 56.
Hooper, S. R., Ward, T. J., Hannafin, M. J., & Clark, H. T. (1989). The effects of aptitude composition on achievement during small group learning. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction.
Inhelder, B., & Piaget, J. (1958). The Growth of Logical Thinking From Childhood to Adolescence: An Essay on the Construction of Formal Operational Structures (Developmental Psychology). Basic Books.
Jain, S., & Shakher, C. (2014). Mathematical and C Programming Approach for Sudoku Game. Journal of Game Theory, 3(1), 1-6.
Janssen, J., Kirschner, F., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P. A., & Paas, F. (2010). Making the black box of collaborative learning transparent: Combining process-oriented and cognitive load approaches. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 139-154.
Jensen, J. L., & Lawson, A. (2011). Effects of collaborative group composition and inquiry instruction on reasoning gains and achievement in undergraduate biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 10(1), 64-73.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Interaction Book Company.
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.
Jones, M. G., & Carter, G. (1994). Verbal and nonverbal behavior of ability‐grouped dyads. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(6), 603-619.
Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1983). Dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free-rider effects. Journal of Personality and social Psychology, 44(1), 78-94.
King, L. H. (1993). High and low achievers' perceptions and cooperative learning in two small groups. The Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 399-416.
Larson, C. O., Dansereau, D. F., Goetz, E. T., & Young, M. D. (1985, February). Cognitive style and cooperative learning: Transfer of effects. In annual meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, Austin, TX.
Larson, C. O., Dansereau, D. F., O'Donnell, A., Hythecker, V., Lambiotte, J. G., & Rocklin, T. R. (1984). Verbal ability and cooperative learning: Transfer of effects. Journal of Literacy Research, 16(4), 289-295.
Laughlin, P. R., Zander, M. L., Knievel, E. M., & Tan, T. K. (2003). Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: Informative equations and effective strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(4), 684.
Loewenthal, K. M. (2001). An introduction to psychological tests and scales. Psychology Press.
Manter, T., & Koljonen, J. (2007, September). Solving, rating and generating Sudoku puzzles with GA. In Evolutionary Computation, 2007. CEC 2007. IEEE Congress on (pp. 1382-1389). IEEE.
Means, M. L., & Voss, J. F. (1996). Who reasons well? Two studies of informal reasoning among children of different grade, ability, and knowledge levels. Cognition and instruction, 14(2), 139-178.
Miura, I. T., Okamoto, Y., Kim, C. C., Steere, M., & Fayol, M. (1993). First graders' cognitive representation of number and understanding of place value: Cross-national comparisons: France, Japan, Korea, Sweden, and the United States. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(1), 24.
Mumford, T. V. (2010). Just Teams: The Relationship Between Team Roles, Fairness and Performance. Journal of the Academy of Business Education, 11.
Morell, L., Buxeda, R., Orengo, M., & Sánchez, A. (2001). After so much effort: Is faculty using cooperative learning in the classroom? Journal of Engineering Education, 90(3), 357-362.
Nestler, S., Echtler, F., Dippon, A., & Klinker, G. (2008, May). Collaborative problem solving on mobile hand-held devices and stationary multi-touch interfaces. In Workshop on designing multi-touch interaction techniques for coupled public and private displays (PPD 08).
Okada, T., & Simon, H. A. (1997). Collaborative discovery in a scientific domain. Cognitive science, 21(2), 109-146.
Panitz, T. (1999). Collaborative versus Cooperative Learning: A Comparison of the Two Concepts Which Will Help Us Understand the Underlying Nature of Interactive Learning.
Παρασκευόπουλος, Ι.Ν. (1985). Εξελικτική ψυχολογία (Τόμος 3). Αθήνα: Ιδιωτική Έκδοση.
Pascual-Leone, J. (1970). A mathematical model for the transition rule in Piaget's developmental stages. Acta psychologica, 32, 301-345.
Pascual-Leone, J., & Goodman, D. (1979). Intelligence and experience: A neoPiagetian approach. Instructional Science, 8(4), 301-367.
Piaget, J. (1951). The child's conception of the world (No. 213). Rowman & Littlefield.
Piaget, J. (1985). The equilibration of cognitive structure. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
Πόρποδας, Κ. (1999). Γνωστική ψυχολογία. Αθήνα: Ελληνικά Γράμματα.
Psycharis, S. (2008). The relationship between task structure and collaborative group interactions in a synchronous peer interaction collaborative learning environment for a course of Physics. Education and Information Technologies, 13(2), 119-128.
Qin, Z., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Cooperative versus competitive efforts and problem solving. Review of educational Research, 65(2), 129-143.
Roadrangka, V., Yeany, R. H., & Padilla, M. J. (1983, April). The construction of a group assessment of logical thinking (GALT). In the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. Dallas, Texas, April (pp. 5-8).
Santos-García, G., & Palomino, M. (2007). Solving Sudoku puzzles with rewriting rules. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, 176(4), 79-93.
Schmitz, M. J., & Winskel, H. (2008). Towards effective partnerships in a collaborative problem‐solving task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 581-596.
Sears, D. A., & Reagin, J. M. (2013). Individual versus collaborative problem solving: divergent outcomes depending on task complexity. Instructional Science, 41(6), 1153-1172.
Serrano, M. T. E., Cantú, A. G., & Vila, I. M. (2003). Problem-solving: Evaluative study of three pedagogical approaches in Mexican Schools. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 2(1), 79-96.
Siegel, C. (2005). Implementing a research-based model of cooperative learning. The Journal of Educational Research, 98(6), 339-349.
Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary educational psychology, 21(1), 43-69.
Sun, C. T., Wang, D. Y., & Chan, H. L. (2011). How digital scaffolds in games direct problem-solving behaviors. Computers & Education, 57(3), 2118-2125.
Tudge, J. (1989). When collaboration leads to regression: Some negative consequences of socio‐cognitive conflict. European Journal of Social Psychology, 19(2), 123-138.
Wan, S. W. Y. (2017). Differentiated instruction: are Hong Kong in-service teachers ready?. Teachers and Teaching, 23(3), 284-311.
Wiley, J., & Jensen, M. (2006, July). When three heads are better than two. In Proceedings of the 28th annual conference of the cognitive science society (pp. 2375-2380).
Vaishnav, H. (2015). Learning a Language-en route Puzzles and Games. International Journal of English Language, Literature and Humanities, 3(2), 550-559.
Volet, S., Summers, M., & Thurman, J. (2009). High-level co-regulation in collaborative learning: How does it emerge and how is it sustained?. Learning and Instruction, 19(2), 128-143.
Vygotsky, L. S. (2012). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Αναλήφθηκε από https://books.google.com.cy/
