Assessing elementary students’ collaborative problem-solving in makerspace activities

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Danielle Herro ◽  
Cassie Quigley ◽  
Oluwadara Abimbade
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Elementary Students ◽  
Peer Interactions ◽  
Collaborative Problem Solving ◽  
Student Interest ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Four Dimensions ◽  
Positive Communication ◽  
Collaborative Problem ◽  
Multiple Paths

Purpose The purpose of this study is to identify and assess collaborative problem solving (CPS) behaviors in elementary students in science, technology, engineering, arts/humanities and mathematics (STEAM)-related making and to garner students perspectives. We offer a valid way for researchers to understand collaborative processes and for educators to create opportunities for collaboration. Additionally, the feedback from the assessment offers students a way to reflect on their CPS skills. Design/methodology/approach This qualitative study evaluated 52 elementary students’ CPS skills using co-measure, a validated rubric assessing students’ CPS when working in STEAM-related makerspace activities. Students worked in collaborative groups to “make” artifacts when solving a problem posed by their teacher. They were assessed using co-measure’s four dimensions: peer interactions, positive communication, inquiry rich/multiple paths and transdisciplinary approaches and scored via each dimension’s associated attributes. Student interviews provided their perspectives on CPS. Findings A majority of students scored in the acceptable or proficient range in the social dimensions of peer interactions and positive communication. Students scored slightly lower on the cognitive dimensions of inquiry rich/multiple paths and markedly lower on transdisciplinary approaches when collaborating. Findings suggest to increase CPS skills, teachers might develop “making” activities fostering greater inquiry and model ways to strategize and verify information, approach the problem drawing on student interest and prior knowledge and collaboratively use tools, materials and methods that mimic the real world when problem-solving. Originality/value Much of the current research on assessing CPS during making is in the early stages of considering appropriate assessment approaches, especially in schools. To expand this literature the study includes elementary students between the ages of 6-10, the focus is on assessing their collaboration using an observational rubric. The authors use preliminary findings from young children’s perspectives on making to position the future work.

Collaborative problem-solving at youth crime hot spots: a pilot study

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 325-338 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charlotte Gill ◽  
David Weisburd ◽  
Zoe Vitter ◽  
Claudia Gross Shader ◽  
Tari Nelson-Zagar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pilot Study ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Hot Spots ◽  
Collaborative Problem Solving ◽  
Matched Pairs ◽  
Youth Crime ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Calls For Service ◽  
Collaborative Problem ◽  
Crime Hot Spots

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to describe a case study of a pilot program in which a collaborative problem-solving approach was implemented at hot spots of juvenile and youth crime in downtown Seattle, Washington. Design/methodology/approach Two matched pairs of youth crime hot spots were allocated at random to treatment (“non-enforcement problem-solving”) or comparison (“policing-as-usual”) conditions within matched pairs. In the treatment condition, police collaborated with community and local government partners to develop problem-solving strategies that deemphasized arrests and other traditional law enforcement approaches. Impacts on crime incidents, calls for service, and police activity were assessed using difference-in-differences Poisson regression with robust standard errors. Findings No significant impact on crime or calls for service was observed at one site, where several problem-solving approaches were successfully implemented. However, crime and calls for service were significantly lower at the other site, where some enforcement activity took place but non-enforcement problem-solving was limited. Research limitations/implications The authors find mixed support for non-enforcement problem-solving at hot spots. The enforcement may be necessary for stabilization, and must be balanced with the risks of justice system involvement for youth. Political support at the city level is necessary for collaboration. Limitations include the small number of sites in this pilot study and key differences between treatment and comparison locations. Originality/value This study is one of the first to assess the impact of primarily non-enforcement problem-solving specifically at youth crime hot spots.

scholarly journals Defining project partnering

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 666-699 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sjur Børve ◽  
Asbjørn Rolstadås ◽  
Bjorn Andersen ◽  
Wenche Aarseth
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Governance Structure ◽  
Collaborative Problem Solving ◽  
Expert Group ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Collaborative Problem ◽  
Basic Framework ◽  
Project Objectives ◽  
Tools And Techniques

Purpose Due to observed problems in real-life projects stemming from the lack of a unified definition, the purpose of this paper is to formulate a new definition of project partnering (PP) through documenting the specific characteristics researchers attribute to this approach. Design/methodology/approach PP definition phrases extracted from a literature review were sorted into a basic framework of who, what, how, when and where. In a web-based survey, a group of experts marked the phrases from the literature review as being specific, generic, or irrelevant to PP. The expert group comprised highly ranked and experienced PP researchers. Based on the survey results, a new definition was formulated. The new definition specifies the participants, the objectives and the knowledge, skills, tools and techniques applied to pursue the objectives in PP. A verification survey of the expert group gave a 78-96 per cent combined approve and support score for each element of the new definition. Findings PP and a partnering project are defined by a framework encompassing three basic dimensions: participants, objectives, knowledge, skills, tools and techniques applied to pursue the objectives. The new definition is: “project partnering is a relationship strategy whereby a project owner integrates contractors and other major contributors into the project”. Through commitment to mutual project objectives, collaborative problem solving and a joint governance structure, partners pursue collaborative relationships, trust and improved performance. The new definition indicates that PP neither varies with early contractor involvement nor gain and pain share, but varies with the degree of mutual project objectives, collaborative problem solving and joint governance structure. Originality/value PP is a complex concept with no widely accepted definition. The basic framework applied to the formulation of the definition in this project can also be applied to define and implement a partnering project and to define and distinguish between other relationship-based procurement forms.

scholarly journals What affordances do open-ended real-life tasks offer for sharing student agency in collaborative problem-solving?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juuso Henrik Nieminen ◽  
Man Ching Esther Chan ◽  
David Clarke
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Video Recording ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Collaborative Problem Solving ◽  
Student Agency ◽  
Student Groups ◽  
Collaborative Problem ◽  
Mathematical Arguments ◽  
Life Tasks ◽  
Collaborative Construction

AbstractThe important role of student agency in collaborative problem-solving has been acknowledged in previous mathematics education research. However, what remains unknown are the processes of agency in open-ended tasks that draw on real-life contexts and demand argumentation beyond “mathematical”. In this study, we analyse a video recording of two student groups (each consisting of four students) taking part in collaborative problem-solving. We draw on the framework for collaborative construction of mathematical arguments and its interplay with student agency by Mueller et al. (2012). This original framework is supplemented by (i) testing and revising it in the context of open-ended real-life tasks, with (ii) student groups rather than pairs working on the tasks, and by (iii) offering a strengthened methodological pathway for analysing student agency in such a context. Based on our findings, we suggest that the framework suits this new context with some extensions. First, we note that differences in student agency were not only identified in terms of the discourse students drew on, but in how students were able to shift between various discourses, such as between “mathematical” and “non-mathematical” discourses. We identify a novel discourse reflecting student agency, invalidation discourse, which refers to denying other students’ agency by framing their contribution as invalid. Finally, we discuss the need to reframe “mathematical” arguments—and indeed student agency—while the task at hand is open-ended and concerns real-life contexts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document