Search

Collaborative problem solving (CPS) is considered as one of the core competencies of the 21st century. Collaborative simulations which allow multiple students to participate in CPS activities in a shared simulation session are now increasingly applied to better facilitate these activities. However, the literature has shown that students' collaboration often does not lead to an effective solution to problems. Guided by the PISA CPS framework, this study thus aimed to analyze students’ collaboration patterns and problem solving strategies in solving a physics problem, and to identify significant patterns which may lead to a successful or unsuccessful outcome. Multiple data sources including group discussions, problem solving activities in a collaborative simulation, and open-ended questionnaire feedback from 30 high school students were analyzed using the lag sequential analysis technique. It was found that collaborative simulation has the potential to help students situate their discussion in a joint concrete problem space, facilitating their formation of a path to solve the problem. More importantly, the results showed significant differences between the successful and unsuccessful groups in terms of their collaboration patterns and problem solving strategies. A considerable portion of the students could only apply an intuitive trial-and-error strategy, and failed to solve the problem in the end. These students showed an inability to monitor and analyze the problem solving process, and were unable to transform their discussion into an executable plan to solve the problem. Those students who applied analytical reasoning strategies were more likely to achieve a successful problem solving outcome. The implications for educational practice are discussed, and the directions for future studies addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent advancements in Web and HTML5 techniques have made collaborative simulations able to support a shared workspace and more synchronous collaboration in a single simulation. However, previous studies show divergent findings regarding the effects of the new features of collaborative simulations. To better understand the affordances and limitations of collaborative simulations, this study analyzed how 64 students learned in two different collaborative learning settings: individual-based simulation and collaborative simulation. To better reveal how students attended to different parts of the simulation, the researchers collected eye movement data and analyzed students' discourse, perceptions of collaboration and learning performance. The findings revealed that the two groups demonstrated similar levels of learning gains. However, the students who used the collaborative simulation displayed lower levels and less frequency of individual attention to the simulation than those using the individual-based simulation. However, the joint attention and discourse analysis suggests that students learning with the collaborative simulation are more likely to engage in effective collaborative learning while demonstrating more constructive discourse threads than those using the individual-based simulation. The findings support that the collaborative simulations transformed the learning experience into a cohesive collaborative learning process. This study also found that the relationship between the joint attention and the discourse features as well as the perceived collaborative experience are not decisive but are influenced by the features of the collaborative learning environment. This article discusses the implications of the use of collaborative simulations and eye movement for supporting collaborative learning, and addresses the direction for future studies. • Recent Web techniques have made collaborative simulations feasible. • Students learning with collaborative simulation displayed lower levels of individual attention. • Their attentions switched among different AOIs. • They demonstrated more constructive discourse threads. • Students are more likely to engage in effective collaborative learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]