Cited by 1,446Innovative Teaching and Learning MethodsScience Education and PedagogyVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes

When Smart Groups Fail

Barron, Brigid·2003·Journal of the Learning Sciences

Abstract

In this study I investigated how collaborative interactions influence problem-solving outcomes. Conversations of twelve 6th-grade triads were analyzed utilizing quantitative and qualitative methods. Neither prior achievement of group members nor the generation of correct ideas for solution could account for between-triad differences in problem-solving outcomes. Instead, both characteristics of proposals and partner responsiveness were important correlates of the uptake and documentation of correct ideas by the group. Less successful groups ignored or rejected correct proposals, whereas more successful groups discussed or accepted them. Conversations in less successful groups were relatively incoherent as measured by the extent that proposals for solutions in these groups were connected with preceding discussions. Performance differences observed in triads extended to subsequent problem-solving sessions during which all students solved the same kinds of problems independently. These findings suggest that the quality of interaction had implications for learning. Case study descriptions illustrate the interweaving of social and cognitive factors involved in establishing a joint problem-solving space. A dual-space model of what collaboration requires of participants is described to clarify how the content of the problem and the relational context are interdependent aspects of the collaborative situation. How participants manage these interacting spaces is critical to the outcome of their work and helps account for variability in collaborative outcomes. Directions for future research that may help teachers, students, and designers of educational environments learn to see and foster productive interactional practices are proposed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1207/s15327809jls1203_1

Cites

94 of 94 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Barron, B.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Barron, Brigid
Venue
Journal of the Learning Sciences
Published
2003-07
Volume
12
Issue
3
Pages
307-359
ISSN
  • 1050-8406 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-7809
OpenAlex
W2046179518
Cited by
1,446
References
94
Citations by year
2026: 63 · 2025: 78 · 2024: 76 · 2023: 76 · 2022: 102 · 2021: 106 · 2020: 72 · 2019: 75 · 2018: 70 · 2017: 72 · 2016: 78 · 2015: 68 · 2014: 82 · 2013: 76 · 2012: 60
FWCI
33.49
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 › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Keywords
collaborative problem solving, group interaction, partner responsiveness, junior high school students, interactional practices

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