CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 731Innovative Teaching and Learning MethodsProblem and Project Based LearningEducational Methods and Outcomes

Teaching problem solving through cooperative grouping. Part 2: Designing problems and structuring groups

Heller, Patricia, Hollabaugh, Mark·1992·American Journal of Physics
DOI 10.1119/1.17118
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A supportive environment based on cooperative grouping was developed to foster students’ learning of an effective problem-solving strategy. Experiments to adapt the technique of cooperative grouping to physics problem solving were carried out in two diverse settings: a large introductory course at state university, and a small modern physics class at a community college. Groups were more likely to use an effective problem-solving strategy when given context-rich problems to solve than when given standard textbook problems. Well-functioning cooperative groups were found to result from specific structural and management procedures governing group members’ interactions. Group size, the gender and ability composition of groups, seating arrangement, role assignment, textbook use, and group as well as individual testing were all found to contribute to the problem-solving performance of cooperative groups.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1119/1.17118

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The consensus-finding crucial for learning in the collaborative stage is best stimulated by complex questions that require higher-level cognitive skills.

    “Research shows that the consensus-finding crucial for learning in the collaborative stage is best stimulated by complex questions that require higher-level cognitive skills (B. S. Bloom et al., 1964;Heller & Hollabaugh, 1992;Rieger & Rieger, 2020;Stearns, 1996).”

    From Active learning through flexible collaborative exams: Improving assessments across disciplines (2026) · cites this paper as Heller & Hollabaugh, 1992

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Heller, P., & Hollabaugh, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Normandale Community College (US)
ORCID
Heller, Patricia
Venue
American Journal of Physics
Publisher
American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT)
Published
1992-07-01
Volume
60
Issue
7
Pages
637-644
ISSN
  • 0002-9505 (ISSN-L)
  • 1943-2909
DOI
10.1119/1.17118
OpenAlex
W2047405957
Cited by
726
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 36 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 41 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 46 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 33 · 2012: 43
FWCI
3.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
American Journal of Physics (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Problem and Project Based Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Methods and Outcomes
Keywords
physics problem solving, problem-solving strategies, context-rich problems, group structure, group management, role assignment, group size, gender composition, seating arrangement, introductory physics, modern physics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review