Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions

  • Research
  • Published:
Educational Technology Research and Development Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study examined the effects of question prompts and peer interactions in scaffolding undergraduate students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task in problem representation, developing solutions, making justifications, and monitoring and evaluating. A quasi-experimental study, supplemented by multiple-case studies, was conducted to investigate both the outcomes and the processes of student problem-solving performance. The quantitative outcomes revealed that question prompts had significantly positive effects on student problem-solving performance but peer interactions did not show significant effects. The qualitative findings, however, did indicate some positive effects of peer interactions in facilitating cognitive thinking and metacognitive skills. The study suggests that the peer interaction process itself must be guided and monitored with various strategies, including question prompts, in order to maximize its benefits.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (Eds.). (2000).How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bransford, J.D., & Stein, B.S. (1993).The IDEAL problem solver: A guide for improving thinking, learning, and creativity (2nd ed.), New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A.L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F.E. Weinert & R.H. Kluwe (Eds.),Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65–116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A.L., & Palincsar, A.S. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.),Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of Rober Glaser (pp. 393–451). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M., Bassok, M., Lewis, M., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems.Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M.T.H., Feltovich, P., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices.Cognition Science, 5, 121–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M.T.H., & Glaser, R. (1985). Problem solving ability. In R.J. Sternberg (Ed.),Human abilities: An information processing approach (pp. 227–250). New York:W.H. Freeman and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, E.A. & Linn, M. (2000). Scaffolding students’ knowledge integration: Prompts for reflection in KIE.International Journal of Science Education, 22(8), 819–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K.A., & Simon, H.A. (1996).Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data revised edition. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feltovich, P.J., Spiro, R.J., Coulson, R.L., & Feltovich, J. (1996). Collaboration within and among minds: Mastering complexity, individuality and in groups. In T. Koschmann (Ed.),CSCL: Theory and practice of an emerging paradigm (pp.25–44). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gick, M.L. (1986). Problem solving strategies.Educational Psychologist, 21(1&2), 99–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gick, M.L., & Holyoak, K.J. (1980). Analogical problem solving.Cognitive Psychology, 12, 306–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, B.A., & Land, S.M. (2000). A qualitative analysis of scaffolding use in a resource-based learning environment involving with the World Wide Web.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 23(2), 151–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, J.C., Caracelli, V.J., & Graham, W.F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods, and models. In C.M. Reigeluth (Ed.),Instructional-design theories and models: Vol. 2. A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 115–140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R.T., Johnson, D.W., & Stanne, M.B. (1985). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on computer-assisted instruction.Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(6), 668–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, R.T., Johnson, D.W., & Stanne M.B. (1986). Comparison of computer-assisted cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning.American Educational Research Journal, 23(3), 382–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Stanne, M.B., & Garibaldi, A. (1990). Impact of group processing on achievement in cooperative groups.The Journal of Social Psychology, 130(4), 507–516.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D.H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem-solving learning outcomes.Educational Technolory Research and Development, 45(1), 65–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jonassen, D.H., Beissner, K., & Yacci, M. (1993).Structural knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (1989). Verbal interaction and problem solving within computer-assisted cooperative learning group.Journal of Educational Computing Research.5(1), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (1991). Effects of training in strategic questioning on children’s problem-solving performance.Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3), 307–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (1992). Facilitating elaborative learning through guided student-generated questioning.Educational Psychologist, 27(1), 111–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (1994). Guiding knowledge construction in the classroom: Effects of teaching children how to question and how to explain.American Educational Research Journal, 31(2), 338–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A., & Rosenshine, B. (1993). Effect of guided cooperative questioning on children’s knowledge construction.Journal of Experimental Education, 61(2), 127–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitchner, K.S. (1983). Cognition, metacognition, and epistemistic cognition: A three-level model of cognitive processing.Human Development, 26, 222–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitchner, K.S. (& King, P.M. (1981). Reflective judgment: Concepts of justification and their relationship to age and education.Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 2, 89–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Land, S.M. (2000). Cognitive requirements for learning with open-ended learning environments.Educational Technology Research and Development, 48(3), 61–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, X., Hmelo, C., Kinzer, C.K., & Secules, T.J. (1999). Designing technology to support reflection.Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(3), 43–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, X., & Lehman, J.D. (1999). Supporting learning of variable control in a computer-based biology environment: Effects of prompting college students to reflect on their own thinking.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 3(7), 837–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lou, Y., Abrami, P.C., & d’Apollonia, S. (2001). Small group and individual learning with technology: A meta-analysis.Review of Educational Research, 71(3), 449–521.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (Eds.). (1994).An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osman, M.E., & Hannafin, M.J. (1994). Effects of advance questioning and prior knowledge on science learning.Journal of Educational Research, 88(1), 5–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palinscar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities.Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A.S., Brown, A.L., & Martin, S.M. (1987). Peer interaction in reading comprehension instruction.Educational Psychologist, 22(3–4), 231–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pea, R. (1993). Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.),Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47–87). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D.N. (1993). Persons-plus: A distributed view of thinking and learning. In G. Salomon (Ed.),Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 88–110). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., & McCormick, C.B. (1987).Advanced educational psychology for educators, researchers, and policy makers. New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roschelle, J. (1992). Learning by collaborating: Convergent conceptual change.Journal of Learning Sciences, 2, 235–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies.Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 181–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salomon, G. (1993). No distribution without individuals’ cognition: A dynamic interactional view. In G. Salomon (Ed.),Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 111–138). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLean, R.S., Swallow, J., & Woodruff, E. (1989). Computer-supported intentional learning environments.Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, 51–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., & Steinbach, R. (1984). Teachability of reflective processes in written composition.Cognitive Science, 8, 173–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoenfeld, A.H. (1985).Mathematical problem-solving. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sinnott, J.D. (1989). A model for solution of ill-structured problems: Implications for everday and abstract problem solving. In J.D. Sinott (Ed.),Everyday problem solving: Theory and application (pp. 72–99). New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slavin, R.E. (1989). Cooperative learning and student achievement. In R.E. Slavin (Ed.), School and class-room organization (pp. 129–156). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stake, R.E. (2000). Case studies. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.),Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 435–454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (Eds.) (1998).Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Zee, E., & Minstrell, J. (1997). Using questioning to guide student thinking.The Journal of the Learning Scineces, 6(2), 227–269.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voss, J.F. (1988). Problem solving and reasoning in illstructured domains. In C. Antaki (Ed.),Analyzing everyday explanation: A casebook of methods (pp. 74–93). London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voss, J.F., & Post, T.A. (1988). On the solving of illtructured problems. In M.H. Chi, R. Glaser, & M.J. Farr (Eds.),The nature of expertise (pp. 261–285). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voss, J.F., Wolfe, C.R., Lawrence, J.A., & Engle, R.A. (1991). From representation to decision: An analysis of problem solving in international relations. In R.J. Sternberg & P.A. Frensch (Eds.),Complex problem solving: Principles and mechanisms (pp. 119–158). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L.S. (1978).Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N.M. (1982). Group composition, group interaction and achievement in cooperative small groups.Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 475–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N.M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups.International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 21–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N.M., & Palincsar, A.S. (1996). Group processes in the classroom. In D.C. Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Eds.),Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 841–873). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wineburg, S.S. (1998). Reading Abraham Lincoln: An expert-expert study in the interpretation of historical texts.Cognitive Science, 22, 319–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, B.Y.L. (1985). Self-questioning instructional research: A review.Review of Educational Research 55, 227–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R.K. (1989).Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Instructional Psychology and Technology Program at The University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma, USA

    Xun Ge (Assistant Professor)

  2. the Instructional Systems Program at The Pennsylvania State University, Pennsylvania, USA

    Susan M. Land (Assiatant Professor)

Authors
  1. Xun Ge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Susan M. Land
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ge, X., Land, S.M. Scaffolding students’ problem-solving processes in an ill-structured task using question prompts and peer interactions. ETR&D 51, 21–38 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504515

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504515

Keywords

Search

Navigation