Cited by 410Innovative Teaching and Learning MethodsVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesScience Education and Pedagogy

The Emergence of Abstract Representations in Dyad Problem Solving

Schwartz, Daniel L.·1995·Journal of the Learning Sciences

Abstract

Three experiments examined whether group cognitions generate a product that is not easily ascribed to the cognitions that similar individuals have working alone. In each study, secondary-school students solved novel problems working either as individuals or in two-person groups called dyads. An examination of their problem-solving representations demonstrated that the dyads constructed abstractions well above the rate one would expect given a "most competent member" model of group performance applied to the empirical rate of individual abstractions. In the first experiment, dyads induced a numerical parity rule for determining the motions of linked gears four times more often than individuals, who instead tended to rely exclusively on modeling the gears' physical behaviors. In a second experiment requiring the construction of visualizations on the topic of biological transmissions, dyads made abstract visualizations (e.g., directed graphs) significantly more often than individuals. In a third experiment requiring a visualization of organisms and their habitat requirements, dyads made abstract visualizations (e.g., matrices) five times more often than individuals, who instead tended to draw pictures. These results are striking because a long history of experimentation has found little evidence that group performances can match the performances of the most competent individuals, let alone exceed them. The extremely high frequency of abstract representations among dyads suggests…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1207/s15327809jls0403_3

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • Creating abstract representations is key to collective problem solving, forming shared representations and making tacit knowledge visible.

    “Schwartz (1995) suggests that the creation of abstract representations is a key to collective problem solving; it forms a mechanism for the 'construction of shared representation' and assists in making tacit knowledge visible.”

    From An Activity Theory framework to explore distributed communities (1997) · cites this paper as Schwartz, 1995

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Schwartz, D. L.
Corresponding author
Schwartz, Daniel L.
Venue
Journal of the Learning Sciences
Published
1995-07
Volume
4
Issue
3
Pages
321-354
ISSN
  • 1050-8406 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7809
OpenAlex
W2058173850
Cited by
410
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 49 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 8
FWCI
3.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of the Learning Sciences (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
Keywords
abstract representation, dyads, collaborative problem solving, group cognition, common ground, visualization, directed graphs, matrices, biological transmission, high school students, group versus individual performance

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