Cola Borat Ive

This article was downloaded by: [Universitat Politcnica de Valncia]
On: 21 October 2014, At: 13:08

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Science

Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsed20
A Collaborative Problem-solving
Process Through Environmental Field
Studies
a b
Mijung Kim & Hoe Teck Tan
a
Curriculum and Instruction , University of Victoria , Victoria ,
British Columbia , Canada
b
School of Science and Technology , Singapore
Published online: 24 Dec 2012.
To cite this article: Mijung Kim & Hoe Teck Tan (2013) A Collaborative Problem-solving Process
Through Environmental Field Studies, International Journal of Science Education, 35:3, 357-387,
DOI: 10.1080/09500693.2012.752116
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.752116
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [Universitat Politcnica de Valncia] at 13:08 21 October 2014
International Journal of Science Education, 2013
Vol. 35, No. 3, 357387, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.752116
A Collaborative Problem-solving
Process Through Environmental
Field Studies
Mijung Kima and Hoe Teck Tanb

a
Curriculum and Instruction, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia,
Canada; bSchool of Science and Technology, Singapore
This study explored and documented students responses to opportunities for collective knowledge
building and collaboration in a problem-solving process within complex environmental challenges
and pressing issues with various dimensions of knowledge and skills. Middle-school students
(n 16; age 14) and high-school students (n 16; age 17) from two Singapore public
institutions participated in an environmental science field study to experience knowledge
integration and a decision-making process. Students worked on six research topics to understand
the characteristics of an organic farm and plan for building an ecological village. Students
collected and analysed data from the field and shared their findings. Their field work and
discussions were video-recorded, and their reflective notes and final reports were collected for
data coding and interpretation. The results revealed that throughout the study, students
experienced the needs and development of integrated knowledge, encountered the challenges of
knowledge sharing and communication during their collaboration, and learned how to cope with
the difficulties. Based on research findings, this study further discusses students learning through
a collaborative problem-solving process, including the interdependence of knowledge and the
development of mutual relationships such as respect and care for others knowledge and learning.
Keywords: Collaboration; Group work; Environmental problem solving; Interdependence;

Knowledge integration
Introduction
Science literacy for all has been an on-going slogan in science education reforms with
various interpretations and practices (DeBoer, 2000; Miller, 2006). In recent years,

Corresponding author. Curriculum and Instruction, University of Victoria, Victoria, British
Columbia, Canada. Email: mjkim@uvic.ca
# 2013 Taylor & Francis

358 M. Kim and H. T. Tan
with increasing socioscientific and environmental issues, there has been a need for
more critical attributes and fine structures of essential goals to science education
reforms in response to these social changes and needs. Advocates for the literacy com-
ponent in science literacy for instance stress the fundamental (i.e. cognitive, affective,
communicative, and technological abilities related to science) and derived (i.e. knowl-
edge of science and the scientific enterprise) senses (Norris & Philips, 2003; Yore,
2012; Yore, Pimm, & Tuan, 2007). A new vision of scientific literacy for all recognizes
the cognitive symbiosis between the derived and fundamental senses (Yore, 2012, italics
original) and suggests a sociocognitive and contextualized framework of interdisci-
plinary knowledge claim, communication, and participation in citizens lifeworld con-
texts (Yore, 2012; Zollman, 2012). With growing concerns for environmental
destruction and sustainable development in both local and global societies, this
vision of science literacy has shed a light on the need for collective engagement of
scientific endeavours in the community-based decision-making and collaborative
problem solving. Researchers claim that traditional scientific approaches and
science education are often rather too mechanistic and compartmentalized to
address the complexity of current environmental issues such as climate change or
deforestation (Dillon & Scott, 2002; Feng, 2012; Godemann, 2008; Klein, 2004,
2006; Ramadier, 2004). This study examines this problematic space in science edu-
cation by highlighting an interdisciplinary approach to collaborative problem
solving in a local environment context.
Interdisciplinary Approach and Knowledge Integration

Socioscientific and environmental research and education require interdisciplinary1
collaboration approach among various dimensions of science, technology, society,
and culture in order to understand the complexity of real-life problems and
decision-making processes (Collin, 2009; Godemann, 2008; Klein, 2004; Rama-
dier, 2004; Scott & Hofmeyer, 2007; Stokols, 2006; Stokols et al., 2003; Zierhofer
& Burger, 2007). In an interdisciplinary approach, the boundaries of traditional dis-
ciplines no longer exist; rather, they collectively become indispensable instruments
for realizing the objectives of problem solving and practice. Interdisciplinary collab-
oration requires more than members simply working together. Godemann (2008)
explained that the complexity and uncertainty of real-life problems and group
dynamics result in challenges of knowledge integration among different disciplines.
By engaging in real-life contexts, members should look for solutions to socially rel-
evant questions through the exchange of knowledge and communicating for consen-
sus which can further generate new knowledge into these issues. Traditional
disciplinary science needs to be incorporated into establishing and supporting
transdisciplinary platforms that foster a participatory process of knowledge contex-
tualization; thus, interdisciplinary knowledge as contextualized integrated knowl-
edge transgresses academic disciplinary boundaries and subsumes value
rationalization in new evaluative criteria towards solutions (Polk & Knutsson,
2008, p. 644). In this regard, knowledge integration is not a mere collection of
Collaborative Problem Solving 359
knowledge, but an expansion, assimilation, and creation of exchanged knowledge

into new contexts.
Much of school science teaching has remained in traditional contexts, which is
compartmentalized and disconnected from other dimensions of knowledge in real-
life contexts (Aikenhead, 2006; Barrett, 2001; Eilam, 2002; Korfiatis, 2005; Slingsby
& Barker, 2003). In this paradigm of disconnected knowledge, it is questionable how
students cross the boundaries of each discipline and integrate their learned knowledge
from separated domains into problem-solving situations. For new modes of knowl-
edge construction with the need for knowledge integration in socioscientific and
environmental problem-solving processes, certain pedagogical designs and practices
in science education have been required to deal with the complexity and uncertainty
of that knowledge and learning process (Zollman, 2012). In education, there has been
much discussion and effort regarding interdisciplinary pedagogical design and
student learning (Feng, 2012; Spelt, Biemans, Tobi, Luning, & Mulder, 2009;
Yang, 2009); and yet there needs to be more practice and reflection of this approach
in secondary school science. With this concern, this study strives to investigate possi-
bilities for interdisciplinary problem-solving process among secondary school
students.
With the emphasis of interdisciplinary approach in school science learning, we con-
sider knowledge integration in two dimensions in this study: cognitive (exchange of
knowledge and creating tentative solutions to given problems) and social process
(communication and collaboration to solve problems). We acknowledge that learning
is not only a cognitive action but also a social process (Nielsen, Du, & Kolmos, 2010;
Wells, 2002), given that cognitive learning development is affected by social inter-
actions in a dialectical relationship between intro- and intra-personal levels (Psaltis,
Duveen, & Perret-Clermont, 2009; Vygotsky, 1978). This study is concerned with
how students are cognitively and socially involved in the knowledge integration
process through their problem-solving tasks. For cognitive involvement, we specifi-
cally look into students knowledge exchange and development. For social involve-
ment, we focus on the dynamics of collaboration. Specific research questions are as
follows:
(1) How do students exchange and develop different dimensions of knowledge
during their problem-solving process?
(2) What experiences and challenges of collaboration do students encounter when
completing their task?
Collaborative Problem Solving

Generally speaking, problem solving in a school context is a process in which students
in groups collaborate to reach desirable solutions or outcomes through acquiring,
communicating, and integrating knowledge and skills (Duch, Groh, & Allen,
2001). It is an effective interdisciplinary approach to develop not only students cog-
nitive thinking and reasoning, but also social knowledge of communication and
decision-making skills (Akkerman et al., 2007; Kelson & Distlehorst, 2000; Tolmie
et al., 2010; Zittoun, Baucal, Cornish, & Gillespie, 2007). Students learn how to
negotiate and integrate different types and levels of knowledge among themselves,
look for solutions to socially relevant questions, and generate knowledge into new
issues (Hmelo-Silver & Barrows, 2008; Polk & Knutsson, 2008; Ramadier, 2004).
During collaborative actions, students learning is prompted, motivated, and devel-
oped by others actions, which Johnson, Johnson, and Smith (2007) called positive
interdependence. Collective responsibility and accountability as forms of positive
interdependence emerges from group members awareness of the task, their roles of
contribution, and distributed engagement in order to advance and create new knowl-
edge among learners in knowledge communities (Johnson et al., 2007; Lee & Duek,
2000; Scardamalia, 2002; Wells, 2002; Zhang, Scardamalia, Reeve, & Messina,
2009).
However, meaningful collaboration does not occur naturally simply because stu-
dents are engaged in group work (Howe, Tolmie, Greer, & Mackenzie, 1995; Kirsch-
ner, Paas, & Kirschner, 2009; Schmitz & Winskel, 2008). Students ability to
collaborate in an interdisciplinary context does not easily arise by itself; it requires
explicit educational strategies such as thorough task design and guidelines (Gode-
mann, 2008; Kirschner et al., 2009; Taconis, Ferguson-Hessler, & Broekkamp,
2001), grouping strategies (Kirschner et al., 2009; Kutnick & Kington, 2005;
Schmitz & Winskel, 2008), recognition of task goals among group members (van
Ginkel & van Knippenberg, 2008), and team-building preparation (Prichard, Bizo,
& Stratford, 2006) to promote knowledge integration and collaborative actions
more effectively. To support students knowledge integration and collaboration in
an environmental problem-solving process, we consider two strategic approaches in
this study: the structure of task and the dynamics of group member interactions.
First, we reflect on the importance of structuring a problem task to develop stu-
dents interdependence and collaboration. When a task includes complexity in both
a decision-making and a problem-solving process, it enhances students knowledge
and collective attitudes during their group work more than when students are
engaged in simple tasks (Kirschner et al., 2009; Zhang, Ayres, & Chan, 2011). Col-
laborative problem-solving tasks require an open-ended, complex approach that
encourages students to interact with others, to become aware of and understand
the uncertainty of knowledge, to transform their own knowledge, and further con-
struct new ideas and solutions collectively. When a problem task is designed within
this complex level, it increases students collaborative manners and the level of inter-
dependency of knowledge integration among themselves (Kirschner et al., 2009).
Second, given that social interaction is inevitably related to cognitive learning out-
comes in a collaborative group work (Blatchford, Kutnick, Baines, & Galton, 2003;
Kutnick & Kington, 2005; Oliveira & Sadler, 2008; Tolmie et al., 2010), we consider
the dynamics of group members as a significant factor to enhance student learning in
this study. Collaborative tasks build up a notion of knowledge communities where
members negotiate and renegotiate their knowledge within and among those commu-
nities (Bruffee, 1993; Johnson et al., 2007). In the process of communication and
negotiation, group membersindividually and collectivelyexperience the issues of

a power relationship (Cornelius & Herrenkohl, 2004), anxiety of accountability
(Sweet & Pelton-Sweet, 2008), and emotional safety and uncertainty of trust
(Tolmie et al., 2010), especially when members have different levels of academic
ability, gender, age, assigning roles, and positions of authority. These issues affect stu-
dents thoughts, actions, and learning outcomes.
As a concern of effective collaborative learning, researchers have questioned ways of
constructing groups such as heterogeneous mixing; and yet, discussions around
grouping strategies are somewhat contradictory with varying results (Cornelius &
Herrenkohl, 2004; Schmitz & Winskel, 2008; Yarrow & Topping, 2001). Stokols
(2006) noted that in an interdisciplinary collaborative work, there is always the possi-
bility of status differences between experts and non-experts in certain knowledge and
skills, which is unavoidable. A certain degree of variation among group members
might be motivational to reflect on their own thoughts, learn from each other, and
strengthen their ideas within the context of multiple perspectives. Through teachers
attentive facilitation and support, it can result in synergetic outcomes to make better
decisions through constructive controversy among group members (Johnson et al.,
2007). These various research findings and suggestions informed us (the researchers
in this study) of the necessity that we needed to clearly understand what goals and
intended outcomes were expected through student collaboration which is what we
examine in this study. Since the researchers invited students in two different grade
levels (ages 14 and 17) to work collaboratively on problem-solving tasks, it was critical
for us as researchers to consider how secondary school students in different levels
learn and help complete their tasks together. By choosing a mixed-ability group strat-
egy, we studied what social interactions emerged and how it affected their problem
solving. The details of the grouping strategy will be explained in more detail in the
research methodology section.
Research Context
This study invited 32 secondary school students in Singapore to participate in two
phases of collaborative work on an environmental task. This study employs a
jigsaw-like approach which builds distributed expertise. When consolidated in hetero-
geneous groups, it can stimulate diversity of ideas that need to be integrated during
problem solving. Jigsaw technique is a collaborative learning tool which all group
members necessarily participate in one overall activity in order to achieve the
common goals of the activity (Bruffee, 1993). In this study, students have different
pieces of knowledge and skills necessary to complete the tasks; thus, collaboration
was necessary.
The Study Site

To provide an opportunity for collaborative research and knowledge-building process,
we invited research participants (Singaporean students) to a field trip at a certified
organic rice farm in Kinong, Malaysia (the farm hereafter). There are not many places
to accommodate this study in Singapore since it is a city state with mostly urban set-
tings; thus, we took the students to neighbouring Malaysia, which is a common prac-
tice in Singapore schools. Since Singapore imports rice from Malaysia, it was also
meaningful for the students to learn where their daily products (i.e. rice) come
from. Within the 260-acre area of the farm, there are rice plots, a small pond where
fish and prawn farming is carried out, a vegetable field (dragon fruits, beans, etc.),
and several irrigation canals. There is a small town about 8 km from the farm.
Organic brown rice is the farms main product; no chemical fertilizers or pesticides
are used. The rice crops are harvested twice a year. During our study, the farm
owner converted one section of rice plots to a conventional farming method due to
financial constraints in 2008. As a result, the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides
was applied in this section. Based on the practices of the farm during our study, we
designed a trip to provide students with the experience of researching the divergent
characteristics and practices occurring on the farm using the process of knowledge
sharing, integration, and collaborative decision-making we described earlier in this
paper.
Participants
The study trip was advertised in a public high school (HS) and middle school (MS) in
Singapore; 16 HS students (age 17) and 16 MS students (age 14) showed interest in
participating in this study. Both schools are located in an area of middle socio-econ-
omic status. There were 11 boys and 5 girls in the HS group and 15 girls and 1 boy in
the MS group. The reasons for the extreme gender imbalance in the MS group were
uncertain even though the study trip was advertised to all students in the school. The
students ethnic backgrounds varied, but were mostly Chinese, Malay, and Indian,
which is common in public schools in Singapore. While they speak their first language
at home, the official language in schools is English. That is, all educational activities at
school are conducted in English. There have been efforts to encourage outdoor or
informal learning contexts in school science although this is not yet widely practiced
in secondary science teaching. Only a few HS students in this study were familiar with
student field research projects through their extracurricular activities such as Astron-
omy club.
Two HS teachers (one physics and one technology teacher) and two MS teachers
(one biology and one chemistry teacher) organized the field trip, helped students
with research and problem-solving tasks, and managed the logistics of the trip.
Since the HS teachers had organized a few field trips prior to this project, they took
the lead on planning and conducting the entire trip. The HS physics teacher (the
second author) met with the university researcher (the first author) several times to
design and coordinate this project including the identification of the research
design, students activities, activity equipment, and reflection questions. The MS tea-
chers were enthusiastic to learn how to teach science in innovative ways and wanted to
participate in this project as well. Before the trip, the teachers met several times to
discuss the details. They also participated as observers in a prior field trip. The role of
teachers was mainly as facilitators to guide students research before and during the
field trip and to look after the logistics of the project.
Design of Field Study: The structure of task and grouping

To promote knowledge integration and collaboration during the problem-solving
process, we looked into the design of student group work, particularly the complexity
of problem task and dynamics of group interactions. Students were given an overall
open-ended task: Develop your ideas on building an eco-village in Kinong region. Students
were asked to include their understanding of the farm, crops, scientific investigation
from the field, and environmental sustainability (i.e. how they can survive in the
village ecologically) in their projects. To develop their understanding of farming
and physical conditions of the farm, students were divided into six groups by topic
to be studied. The six group topics were insect studies, soil chemistry, soil physical
properties, water chemical quality, bio-indicator studies, and weather studies.
Whereas we made the overall question (how to build an eco-village) open-ended,
we developed guided sub-research questions to facilitate and focus student activities
due to time constraints (see Appendix 1). During the project, students were engaged
in two phases; pre-field study at schools and on-site field study in the farm. Based on
their research on the six topics, interactions within Kinong region, and their back-
ground knowledge and values, students were to make decisions about the eco-
village proposal as the tasks final product. In terms of grouping, we chose a mixed
grouping of HS and MS students in a jigsaw-like structure in order to enhance
their experiences and abilities of scientific investigation and to understand interactions
between the two age groups. Because HS students had more experiences in scientific
investigation and with experimental equipment, we expected a mixed age grouping
would benefit the field research process. The details of task and grouping designs
follow.
Pre-field study. The pre-field study took place for six weeks at the students schools.
When the six topics were introduced to the students, they chose a research topic based
on their interest. During this phase, students gathered once a week in their own school
to research their topic. The students looked into various resources (e.g. library books,
Internet web pages, and parents) for their answers. They also learned how to collect
data samples and analyse data by using equipment such as microscopes, soil and water
sensors, digital weather instruments (wind and sunlight recorders), and global posi-
tioning systems (GPS).
During the six weeks, the HS students visited the MS students three times in order
to get to know each other, test equipment together, and share their findings on the
research questions. Five HS students who had interests or previous experiences
with the test equipment volunteered to study how to use equipment and how to
analyse and interpret data with the support of the HS physics teacher before they
visited the MS students. In this case, the HS students became knowledgeable and
familiar with the equipment and data analysis techniques and could help the MS stu-
dents more effectively. During this period of collaborative work by HS and MS stu-
dents, the teachers were facilitating the sessions. As might be expected, the teachers
noticed that MS students were less familiar with some scientific concepts and inves-
tigation than the HS students during this period; but no direct teaching or lecturing
was involved. The students were informed that the farm was remote and they
would not have Internet access; thus, they took their study notes and resource
books on the trip. Students were asked to choose their group leaders during this
period. The five HS students who were more knowledgeable and confident in research
process and one MS student who was new to this type of project were chosen as group
leaders. Their role was to help meet their groups needs, facilitate group work, and
check the equipment and materials before and during the field trip. Other than
these directions, there were no specific instructions assigned to the group leaders.
On-site field study. After the pre-field study, the teachers and students went on the
four-day/three-night field trip. Once students arrived at the farm, they were greeted
by the farms owner and gathered in a common area to get instructions from the tea-
chers. Then they toured the farm to get familiar with the overall layout of the farm and
started their group work by identifying where they wanted to collect samples. All of
the equipment for their group research was brought from Singapore. Students were
also provided with farm maps and a GPS device to indicate their data sampling
sites (see Appendix 2). Once students decided where to collect their samples, they
established their research stations, collected their samples (soil, water, insects, and
weather) and analysed the data using the provided equipment. During this trip, stu-
dents were encouraged to ask questions of their teachers and interact with farm
workers when they needed any information about the farm and farming.
There were two stages during the on-site field trip. The first stage focused revolved
around data collection and analysis and the second stage focused on data sharing
and decision-making. To promote students collaboration and knowledge integration,
we designed students tasks and grouping in a jigsaw-like way. That is, during the
data collection and analysis stage (the first and second day), students stayed in their
original groups (six topics) and during the sharing and decision-making stage (the
third day), students moved to new groups. During their data collection, students
were informed which part of the farm was organic and which was not. They became
curious about this and asked the farmers about this change. They also asked the
farmers about organic farming, the economic values of organic rice, crops, irrigation,
and other agricultural practices using their pre-field study notes and relevant resource
books. On the third day, all students were mixed into new groups for data sharing and
decision-making around the inquiry topic: building an eco-village. About two or three
students from the original six topic groups were grouped into a new discussion group
(Groups 15) for the second stage. In this way, each new group comprised one or
two students from all six research groups (Figure 1; also see Appendix 3 for an
example of the process).
Figure 1. Overview of collaboration process during field study

In the groups of the second stage, students would incorporate different research
findings and knowledge from their first group research. For instance, a student A
belongs to the group of insect studies during stage 1. After A finishes research on
insects with her group members, she moves to Group 5 in stage 2. Other members
of her group move to other new groups (Groups 1 4). In Group 5, A is the only
member from insect studies and other members are from soil, water, bio-indicator,
and weather study groups. Therefore, she needs to share the findings on insect
studies in the Group 5 to write a final group report. This grouping strategy was
intended to enrich knowledge sharing and communication skills amongst group
members.
Group 1 in the second stage was formed only with six group leaders from the first
stage. We grouped them together so that they would not dominate group discussion
and decision-making. Whenever the other students had questions or uncertainty in
their findings during group discussions, they would come to this leaders group
(Group 1) to discuss their questions and findings with their group leaders. During
the second stage decisionmaking, the new groups came up with plans for an eco-
village by using scientific data collected from the farm, data collected from their
pre-field study, information obtained from the farmers, and their own values and
understanding of what a sustainable environment would look like. Then they pre-
sented their plans in a PowerPoint format to the teachers, farm workers, and about
100 HS students from another programme who were participating in nearby
outdoor activity near the farm at that time.
During the field trip, even if there was teacher assistance, students mostly worked
by themselves. Since there were six different groups moving around different research
sites throughout the farm, it was not possible for the four teachers to be attentive to all
their actions. The teachers facilitated group discussions at night to reflect on accom-
plishments, challenges, and difficulties that they encountered during their daily tasks.
The students reflective discussions were conducted separately in two groups; that is,
MS students were separated from HS students for these discussions. After the field
trip, there were post-field trip activities. MS students were encouraged to engage in
further sharing by posting their experiences on a class blog. They also explored
more questions around the sustainability of farming and the use of scientific
investigations. The HS students were also engaged in further activities such as pre-
senting their field research in local science fairs.
As science education researchers, we anticipated that the grouping strategies in this
study might result in some difficulties and issues due to the diversity of students abil-
ities and power relationships among different group members. One intention for this
study was to understand how students with different knowledge and grades interacted
with each other during their collaboration. Thus, we argue here, the grouping of HS
and MS students together would benefit student learning and provide important
insights into the research we have presented in this study.
Data Collection and Analysis

The methods of data collection for this study were to video/audio record students
activities (field research work, group discussions, and presentations to the audience);
collect reflective writing and final reports; and keep observation notes throughout the
study (Table 1). To understand the students collaboration in more depth, we ran-
domly chose the soil chemistry group in the first stage of field study and Group 5
in the second stage of the on-site field study. During students field study, one of
the researchers followed the soil chemistry group, carrying a video camera. She
recorded students field work, interactions among members as well as with farm
workers in the field and discussions during data analysis and decision-making.
There was a 3040 min reflective discussion session every night. During the reflective
discussion, HS and MS students were separated and formed their own groups (i.e. HS
group and MS group). During students group discussions, the researchers were
observing and recording students conversations through both video camera and
voice recorder in order to capture the discussion more clearly.
From the video/audio data, the researchers attempted to understand how students
collected and analysed their data and how they collaborated during the problem-
Table 1. The summary of data collection
Study process Data source and collectiona
Pre-field study Students research note and reflective writing on their research
On-site field Stage 1 Video recording on soil chemistry groups field work
study Video/audio recording on soil chemistry groups discussion
Video/audio recording on school-based group discussion
Individual reflective writings
Stage 2 Video/audio recording on Group 5s discussion
Video/audio recording on HS and MS group discussion and
presentation
Sub-groups final reports and individual reflective writings
Post-field study Video recording on interview with three HS students
a
Researchers observation and field notes throughout the study were collected.
solving process. Students reflective writings were also a powerful data source that
strengthened our data interpretation and research findings. For reflective writing,
we sometimes gave them particular questions to ponder in terms of the research
process and collaboration; for example, Did you encounter any difficulties during the
field work? What were they? How well did you work as a group? What were your roles
during the field work? Did you manage them well? and Did you enjoy working with
others? Three HS students who were participating in a science fair also volunteered
for a casual interview which shared their learning experiences; these conversations
were videotaped and transcribed.
For data analysis, the researchers here looked into data from different data sources:
video and written data. We attempted to understand students cognitive (knowledge

integration) and social (dynamics of collaboration) learning through the problem-
solving task. For knowledge integration, we focused on, but did not limit ourselves
to; video data on students field work, their discussions on how to make decisions,
and final reports and presentations. In analysing the dynamics of collaboration, the
researchers here paid more attention, but did not limit to reflective writings and dis-
cussion as well as video data of these students fieldwork. In addition, the researchers
observation notes were compared to other data resources for the purpose of interpret-
ation. We employed a thematic coding processopen, axial, and selective coding
(Flick, 2006)to find emerging themes of student learning through collaborative
problem solving through constant comparison (Table 2). For open coding, the
researchers individually watched video data and read written data to look into key-
words and ideas that were frequently used in students work and then wrote down
their interpretations on the keywords and ideas that were emerging. Once this work
was completed, we met together to discuss our individual findings and come up
with preliminary themes based on the keywords, ideas, and interpretations we
found in this study. All keywords, ideas, and interpretations were openly discussed
at this point. We also discussed our observations of students throughout their
Table 2. The summary of thematic coding process
Coding
process Tasks Main data source
Open Looking for keywords and ideas frequently expressed Video/audio data, reflective
coding ... preliminary interpretation writings and final reports
Axial coding Deductive verification of the preliminary Video/audio data, reflective
interpretations from open coding ... writings and final reports
crosschecked among different data source ...
possible themes
Selective Themes re-examined in specific cases that presented Selected episodes and parts
coding the themes clearly .. . crosschecked with other of data
data sources ... themes finalized ... themes
reflected on the dynamics of collaborative problem
solving
experiences and how it was reflected in the data. We discussed key ideas and interpret-
ations during axial coding while watching and reading the data together.
During axial coding, various data sources were crosschecked for deductive verifica-
tion of the preliminary patterns found during open coding. For instance, the idea of
acknowledging the necessity of working together based on keywords such as had
to share, need to explain findings to others, etc. was found in students reflective
notes as well as group discussions in video data. The efforts and result of student col-
laboration were also shown in group activity and final reports. This was incorporated
as one theme; knowledge exchange. This necessity of knowledge exchange led stu-
dents to feel a greater responsibility of their own knowledge and challenges in com-
munication, which became another important theme in this study. We paid

particular attention to the reflective writings and final report from the soil chemistry
group in the first stage and Group 5 in the second stage of the field study because we
had video data of both their discussions and fieldwork. From this process, we
attempted to understand the relationships within their interactions, reflections, and
knowledge development in more depth.
For selective coding, we looked into data more thoroughly and examined the
dynamics of students knowledge development and interactions during collaboration.
During this process, we selected episodes and parts of data where the themes were
most evident to calibrate our interpretation and develop further discussion. We did
not find any distinctive differences among the different groups in their reflective
notes regarding the challenges of problem solving and difficulties of communication.
In other words, similar comments and challenges were expressed in their reflective
notes and during group discussions. As a result, we selected episodes from various
groups to discuss our research themes in greater depth. By looking into those episodes
and interpretations, we attempted to understand what challenges students encoun-
tered in terms of knowledge integration and communication and how they overcame
them. This process allowed us to contemplate how students learn through cognitive
and social learning.
Findings
The studys findings highlight how students learn and integrate their knowledge and
how they interact to solve their problems. The findings are explained in five dimen-
sions; knowledge exchange, responsibility for knowledge, deepening thinking levels,
challenges of decision-making/communication, and coping with differences.
Development of Knowledge Exchange

In the structure of this inquiry, the students shared their information from pre- and
on-site field studies with other group members and made decisions based on the
various data the group generated. In their final reports, students discussed the
farms crops, their research findings from the field, and environmental characteristics
of the farm. The students also discussed the various environmental issues arising in
different locations of the farm including water quality, pollution, and energy
resources. For example, students discovered that the wind speed was too low
(0.3 m/s) compared to countries such as the Netherlands (5 m/s) that use wind
power as an energy resource. According to the students proposals, solar power was
more possible except during the monsoon season as an alternative energy resource.
In this case, the data (0.3 m/s), the knowledge from pre-field research (the Nether-
lands where wind speed was an average of 5 m/s), and local conditions (except
monsoon season) were combined to develop their judgment (wind speed was too
low and solar power is more possible). In another example related to environmental
contaminants, students said that
the stream near vegetable fields was more contaminated than other places. The colori-
meter was 0.339 before vegetable farm area and 1.301 after the area which demonstrated
a marked increase. Student research shows that after the water has left the farm, it was a
purer sample. This is due to absorption of elements and other contaminants in the water
when it passed through the farm via the soil and plants.
As a result of these findings, students decided to build a residential area far from the
stream and discussed how to minimize any household impact on water quality and
other safety issues in that region.
Table 3 shows the different components of knowledge that the students in the five
groups incorporated in their reports. Students discussed their knowledge from the
field studies as well as other sources of knowledge (e.g. field notes, conversations
with farmers, and background knowledge). They also explored the values of human
living, ecology, and society (e.g. why villagers need to find sustainable ways to
farm, live, and harmonize their lives with the environment) during their discussions
and in the final reports. In Group 1s final report, the dimensions of knowledge
resources were more varied than other groups reports. We interpreted that this
might be because this group comprised group leaders who were more confident in
including their own findings as they took the lead of planning and researching.
We recorded Group 5s discussion during their decision-making process. The
members exhibited various dimensions of knowledge in their discussion. Students
shared their findings with ideas of living ecologically (e.g. everyday food, water
usage, and energy savings), values of organic farming (e.g. healthy diet and healthy
environment), and stories from the farmers who had been working in the farm for
years (e.g. rice farming, livestock, etc.), and commercial values of organic rice (e.g.
products and economic benefits). During students data collection, the farmers
explained that they had to switch some part of the farm from organic to non-
organic three years previously because their farm could not yield enough economic
benefits to sustain itself. They started planting vegetables such as dragon fruits for
agricultural income as well. The students also observed farmers catching fish in the
pond and later eating them for dinner. The farmers and students discussed the impor-
tance of water quality for living on the farm. The ideas discussed with the farmers
became critical catalysts for students to reflect on the sustainability of eco-farming
and conditions of an eco-village. These ideas were expressed in their discussions,
Table 3. Dimensions of knowledge in students decision-making
Group5b
a
Group1 Group2 Group3 Group4
Knowledge dimensions (report) (report) (report) (report) Report discussion
Data from scientific Insect studies v v

experiment Soil chemical v v v v v v
Water chemical quality and bio- v v v v v
indicator
Weather studies v v v v v v
Data from other sources Pre-field study notes v v v v v v
Social-cultural v v v v
Economic v v v v v
Agricultural v v v
Environmental v v v v v
a
Group1 is a group of leaders from six different research groups.
b
Group 5 s discussions were video -recorded in the second stage of field study.
presentations, and final reports. For example, students said that the farmers told us some
parts of the farm were not organic, which means chemical fertilizer was used . . . We need to
think about economic values and also environmental sustainability.
In the process of knowledge integration, the students evaluated the relevance and
certainty of their data for their problem solving. Their work was not only a simply
recited knowledge by members, but a negotiated reasoning process for collective
ideas. It was a transformative knowledge-building process and went beyond the
simple collection of knowledge (Bruffee, 1993). For example, Group 5 members cri-
tically evaluated given data for inclusion in the final report. They decided to exclude
some findings from the insect studies because of the lack of relevance to their ques-
tions on building an eco-village. The following excerpt is from their conversation.

MS girl 1: What about insect? insect . . . insect . . . it does affect a little.
HS boy 1: You see, insects . . . it does not matter much here . . . (inaudible)
MS girl 1: Yah, but there is a little bit (of impact), right? There still is.
HS boy 1: But it is an organic farm, right? There is no pesticide spread . . . So no matter
how you breed the crops, insects will move around . . .
HS boy 2: We are not going to spread pesticides in our eco-village, we will have many
insects anyway . . . .
MS girl 2: So we dont include it here?
Then, students continued to discuss the economic value of crops, irrigation, animals,
and the welfare of local residents. To reach consensus, students negotiated and eval-
uated their knowledge for the given problem. During the discussion, students also
visited the group of leaders whenever questions and uncertainty arose from research
findings. Sometimes questions were resolved and sometimes questions like level of
chemicals in soil, remained unsolved. Interestingly, they did not present the unsolved
issues in their final report. It appeared that the relevance and certainty of information
were taken as important criteria for their decision-making.
Recognition on Responsibility of Knowledge

Because each group worked on a different task and hold different expertise, student
collaboration was essential to problem solving. Students took turns presenting their
own research findings so that findings from the six topic groups were shared
amongst group members. By integrating all pieces of information, students were
able to finalize their decision-making on the given task. The students realized their
roles and were able to create complex relationships in their group work. In their reflec-
tion notes, more than 90% of the students wrote that they realized how their work was
connected to each other and how much they valued working with others.
It was necessary to listen to other research teams . . . my project will not tell everybody the
answer. It takes the integration of data that every group has collected to make into our
answer. Its like a jigsaw puzzle, our piece does not make a picture, many do. (HS boy,
reflection note)
They helped to strengthen our justification by using evidence they found. They helped to
add in more points in which I missed out. (MS boy, reflection note)
It was interesting to find out about each others readings and see how they tally with my
own readings. The different results from the various groups were interlinked and it felt
like a whole jigsaw puzzle being put together to form a bigger picture when we collated
all our data together. It was very enjoyable designing the farm too. (HS girl, reflection
note)
During this collaborative process, the students experienced their own responsibility
for learning and providing their expert knowledge to other group members to solve
the big question. Since we informed students that they would explain their findings
to others, it seemed students realized their anticipated roles. Many students expressed
that they initially felt tension and pressure to know their research well in order to
explain their knowledge to others later. There were other issues the students identified
as well. Four of the six groups of MS students reported difficulty with the data collec-
tion and the reliability of results during their reflective discussions. Over 80% of HS
students reported difficulty in the accuracy of data collection and its analysis during
the field trip on their reflection notes. They explained that it was challenging,
especially when they had to explain it to others. Recognizing the importance of
their role in knowledge sharing and problem solving, they felt the responsibility for
their learning and knowledge. With the recognition of doing their own part to the
problem-solving task, the students appreciated each others contributions to the big
picture of this field experience. When students were asked to reflect on their roles
in group work, some students explained as follows:
The most difficult part was to take the responsibilities of some questions we will need to
be prepared when we get asked for. So we had to ask how much . . . (inaudible) some data
missing so we went back to ask for help. (MS boy, group discussion)
When there are no or little results for a particular substance, it can be really a headache.
For example, we were to find out the amount of nitrates in the soil (dragon fruit). The
results were depressing as it showed low nitrate levels in the dragon fruit soil when
there is supposed to be high levels of nitrate as the plant was growing so well. Thus we
had to think really hard of the numerous possibilities of why there was little nitrate
when there was supposed to be much higher in order to explain our results to others.
It was the most difficult part of our data collection and analysis. (HS girl, reflection note)
The recognition of interdependency of knowledge building and decision-making

seemed to motivate them to learn and share their knowledge with a level of accuracy.
This developed a sense of ownership and responsibilities for their knowing and learn-
ing in group work.
Deepening the Level of Thinking for Secondary School Students

At the beginning of the study, we as researchers had questioned how collaboration
between the two different grade groups would affect students learning and
problem-solving skills. When we observed students interactions in the beginning of
the project, we were concerned about the lack of participation by the MS students.
They were not as prepared as the HS students in terms of knowledge, thinking
skills, scientific investigation, and maturity. However, over time, we observed that
positive group interactions and engagements developed among MS and HS students.

In their reflection notes, more than 70% of MS students said they enjoyed working
with their HS peers. They said they learned much from HS students when they
were having trouble with scientific experiments and enjoyed the opportunities of
transcending their own boundaries of learning. During the task, the MS students
were exposed to scientific investigations, discussions, and topics of ecological sustain-
ability, which contributed towards a high level of cognitive learning. They mentioned,
it makes me more interested to learn about things that I am not sure and things I do
not know or It was a very fun project even though I faced with lots of difficulties
because I didnt know things well. I want to learn more about scientific investigation
(from casual conversation and reflection note). Also, here is an excerpt from the
second reflective discussion among MS students on the last day of the field trip.
The MS teacher asked the students what they enjoyed or learned from this trip.
The students mentioned a cognitive challenge that they encountered during a
discussion.
Girl 1: Our group discussion was better than class discussion at school.
Teacher: What aspects?
Girl 1: There were the seniors, and we get lots of, a lot of more time for discussion, errr . . .
I dont know how to say, but, I just felt the discussion here was better than ones with my
classmates.
Teacher: Is this consensus from the rest of you?
Girl 1: Well, I am only one from the group.
Teacher: So the rest of you, do you think the same way as well?
Students: Yah
Teacher: Can you elaborate more? How is it better here than discussion at school?
Girl 1: We think more here.
Girl 2: So you dont think at school?
Girl 1: I think less. And here we think more.
Researcher: In what way? What did you think about?
Girl 1: More ideas
Girl 3: Open-up
Girl 1: Yah, more open-up. And the most enjoyable part of the discussion was we cared
about new ideas for bio-degradable and non-bio degradable trash. . . . the seniors
started talking about what is biodegradable trash as what is not, then we talked more
about the ideas, lets say, gum, we cannot (inaudible) . . . then cooking oil until we . . ..
(inaudible)
Girl 4: Very, very fun.
Girl 1: Then difficulties were . . . when we were stuck with some questions . . .
Girl 5: it took a long time to answer.
Some ideas and questions were raised by the HS students during group discussions
which seemed to enhance the MS students curiosity. It seemed that, even if it was
challenging, they enjoyed the deep level of their discussions with older students
which they thought might not have been possible at their own level. In their reflective
notes, nine MS students wrote that in future trips they wanted to learn more about
scientific investigations, problem solving, and the topics they discussed. They appreci-
ated the opportunities of learning ideas, scientific investigations, and discussions with
HS students. Much research has suggested positive outcomes of outdoor education

on students knowledge and attitudes in science education (e.g. Fancovicova &
Prokop, 2011; Hayashi & Ewert, 2006; Lakin, 2006). Hands-on activities, wonders
and openness in outdoor places, and different learning approaches in outdoor edu-
cation often motivate students curiosity, learning, and knowledge development. We
acknowledge the opportunity to learn at the rice farm. In addition, the fact that it
was a student-centred process with no significant pressure on the evaluation from
their teachers in this study may have helped students thinking and learning as
more creative and open. However, as researchers we also recognized that the inter-
change between new and high levels of ideas and knowledge from the HS students
may have challenged the MS students to expand their ideas and led them to further
levels of thinking and learning during the collaborative process. This could be recog-
nized as a positive experience of cognitive challenge.
Challenges of Decision-making and Communication

In addition to the development of knowledge exchange, responsibility of knowledge,
and depth of learning, there were many challenges of communication and decision-
making skills regarding different dimensions and levels of knowledge and skills. The
students encountered several challenges of decision-making, for example: deciding
where to collect samples, how to record and analyse their data from the samples,
which data to incorporate into their final report, and how to present their findings
from this environmental study. They negotiated among different opinions and ideas
in order to arrive at their final decision. The challenges sometimes were from lack
of knowledge and sometimes from the age differences between the participants.
More than 80% of the HS students and 70% of the MS students wrote about the chal-
lenges of communication during their group work.
Communicating ideas across to others was a challenge . . . There were a lot of conflicting
suggestions and it was hard to come to a conclusion. (HS boy, reflection note)
Everyone played a part in the decision making as the group leader asked everyone for their
opinion first before making any decisions. This was quite important as it was to ensure that
everyone was okay with the locations as some were really far away. (HS boy, reflection note)
MS students also experienced difficulties of being involved in decision-making as their

discussion was sometimes dominated by senior members.
Even though we were not very worried about it, sometimes, its a quite serious atmosphere
during discussion . . . Difficulty was.. err . . . seniors liked to do things on their own, some-
times we didnt have a chance to do it, do the presentation, and I always wanted . . . , I have
been sitting beside seniors to look what they are doing. (MS girl, group discussion)
The students who took up the role of group leader encountered challenges of
decision-making on their own ways.
Being the group leader in my team, we had had to make a lot of decisions due to some
insufficient data which we must assume with other factors and information. (MS girl,
reflection note)
As a leader of soil physical group, I was the one who was making most of the decisions in
the group. However, I would of course make these decisions only after considering every-
one elses thoughts and feelings. The bottom line is, however, you must make a correct
decision, not a popular one. (HS, boy, reflection note)
To achieve their shared goals, the students experienced many moments of complex
decision-making and consensus during collaboration. The communication and
decision-making process could even be more challenging among group members
with substantial differences in their ideas about the project. In this study, differences
in knowledge levels, age, and roles of group leaders certainly created difficulties for
decision-making and communicating. However, despite encountering these difficul-
ties, most of these students developed positive relationships among themselves

which is explained in the next section.
Learning to Cope with Differences

Earlier in this article, the authors of this study noted that students faced difficulties
when working with members with different levels of knowledge during their field
work. This was also expressed in their reflection notes. Sometimes the HS students
got frustrated because MS students were not able to follow their discussion as
quickly as they expected. The MS students also struggled to understand HS students
ideas and actions and were frustrated when their questions were not answered. The
researcher (first author) casually interviewed individual students during their tasks,
and some HS students mentioned that
we cannot ask them to do some work because they dont know how. Either I have to teach
the basics to the juniors or I just do it myself. But thats ok. They are only middle school
students. They try hard to learn.
Some MS students responded that sometimes they felt left out because they could not
follow the discussion, despite the fact that the HS students were willing to help them.
The above challenges in communication between the two groups of students were
constantly encountered and required deliberate efforts to cope with and move on to
the next step.
Those difficult moments were when those HS students spoke those things that we in the
secondary 2 level do not understand but they did explain to us if we didnt understand.
(MS girl, reflection note)
I enjoyed working with my team members as they would explain things that I dont under-
stand to me and they could provide me evidence and explanation to my doubt. (MS girl 2,
reflection note)
Working with the seniors (high school students) was a very good experience for me. I
learned a lot of new things which were vital to our research like the weather station.
(MS boy 2, reflection note)
It was observed that MS students were helped by HS students regarding the difficul-
ties of data collection and analysis. It seemed that the relationship between HS and
MS students turned out to be a mentormentee relationship, rather than an equal or

independent relationship. As the HS students were more knowledgeable in handling
science equipment and analysing data, they took the role of guiding and helping the
MS students. For example, in the soil chemical group, a HS student took the leader-
ship by explaining the impact of chemicals on plant growth and how to measure the
chemicals in soil samples. He reminded junior students about safety issues (e.g.
dont rub your eyes after you touch the chemicals, etc.) and monitored their
actions during chemical handling. With his and other HS students guidance, the
MS students did most of the soil chemical tests and analysis. He also raised why?
questions during the group work in order to assess that the MS students understood
what they were doing. The following conversation is an example of their interactions:
HS boy: You can read the part of potassium (on the sheet). Why high potassium at
[dragon fruit field]?
MS girl 1: (she is reading the explanation sheet) Fruits.
HS boy: So one giant dragon fruit needs a lot of high potassium, right?
MS girl 1: Yes.
HS boy: So what, er, high potassium, does it do anything? What does potassium do? Its
important for flowering and fruiting, right, so and if you want a lot of dragon fruits, you
will need a lot of potassium. So its good, means the soil is good. Next, phosphorus;
what does phosphorus do? Why do you need phosphorous?
MS girl 1: Plant (inaudible)
...
MS girl 2: The plants grow better with high . . .
HS boy: Why, why, I am talking about the level.
MS girl 1: Do you mean why its like that?
HS boy: Yah
MS girl 2: Because they . . . (inaudible)
HS boy: Yah, how, how do they make the level decrease? How? Because you look at the
soil, its very good soil, very good colour of soil, but why high potassium and high to
medium phosphorus?
MS girl 2: Because the plants absorbed phosphorus.
HS boy: Yah, fair, logical.
HS boy: Then why is there high potassium?
MS girl 2: It does not absorb . . .
HS boy: No no, it will absorb it. It absorbs potassium, definitely it will absorb phosphorus,
but why does it remain high?
Others: . . .. (pause)
HS boy: So the farmer gave me information, fruits . . . three years already, why still there is
high potassium? . . . There is still high potassium so, this means it is not absorbing much
potassium or its, . . . they add more . . .
Through the conversation, the HS student helped MS students understand why the
soil in the dragon fruit field showed a high level of potassium and try to come up
with possible interpretations of the data from the field. Taking the role of mentor,
the HS student was showing his willingness to help his juniors. The MS students
were also positively interacting with the HS students in the group, by asking for
help and other questions. This notion was observed by the researchers occasionally
in other groups during the field work.
Discussion
Given that environmental problems are often intertwined with various sectors of
knowledge and skills, knowledge integration through collaboration among commu-
nity members is necessary to understand the complexity of current environmental
issues, find solutions, and propose visions of future development. Knowledge inte-
gration during problem solving is not members simply exchanging and summing up
their knowledge. They need to evaluate and negotiate complex levels of shared knowl-
edge to find agreed solutions. Providing interdisciplinary problem-solving contexts
can be a valuable way to enhance students knowledge integration and collaboration.
Educators need to be aware that effective collaboration is not an easy task when stu-
dents have different backgrounds, interests, knowledge, skills, and values. However,
the process of coming together to reach a consensus, based on this research,
appears to have significant value. In this study, despite potential concerns around
the inequality of power, we mixed HS and MS students in groups in order to
discuss the dynamics of cognitive and social dimensions of knowledge integration in
collaborative problem solving.
Interdependence of Knowledge
Throughout collaborative problem solving, interdependence of knowledge was devel-
oped and acknowledged among students. Students conducted six different investi-
gations on a rice farm to design an eco-village around that region. Through their
research, the students decided what vegetables to plant, where to build houses and irri-
gation channels, ways of reducing water contamination, and how to sustain an organic
farming business. These different dimensions of scientific knowledge from their own
and others research were exchanged to complete the given inquiry. The students
then extended this knowledge and discussion in the context of social and environmental
concepts and values. The notion of cognitive knowledge integration among different
dimensions of knowledge was present through their problem solving. During their col-
laboration, the students experienced an interdependence of group knowledge and sup-
ports. Students recognized the goal of the task, differences in members knowledge,
experiences, values, and beliefs. Thus, the necessity of knowledge integration and com-
munication in order to reach their decisions required a thoughtful consensus.
Their recognition on the interdependence of knowledge also developed students
own understanding of the importance of data and accuracy of knowledge (four out
of six groups of MS students and over 80% of HS students). That is, individuals
acknowledged their own cognitive responsibility as knowledge experts in collective
domains. When group members know they hold different expertise and who has
what knowledge in what areas, they initiate their own pathway of responsibility of
knowing and sharing. As a result, the quality of group work and knowledge exchange
can be improved.
The interdependence of knowledge and skills positively increased inter- and intra-
collaboration among groups and affected knowledge integration among students in
this study as also seen in Littlepage, Robinson, and Reddington (1997)s research.
Sweet and Michaelsen (2007) posited that the importance of collaborative learning
acknowledges the differences of knowledge and traditions and further creates con-
ditions and opportunities in which students can negotiate the boundaries between
the knowledge community they belong to and the one that others belong to.
Through this recognition of and negotiation among multiple perspectives and exper-
tise, a groups decision-making matures over time in the realms of: interdependency,
inclusion, and trust among team members (Sweet & Michaelsen, 2007). These
psychological dynamics critically impact members cognitive development in their
problem solving as well. The information is shared more freely and creatively as the
group becomes an increasingly safe place where members know more or less what
to expect from each other (Wheelan, 2005). In this regard, a collaborative interdisci-
plinary group task looks into not only cognitive knowledge integration but also into
the maturity of social interactions among group members.
Respect and Care as Mutual Relationships

One of the concerns researchers had in this study relates to an understanding of how
students experienced their collaborative problem solving and interacted with each
other in order to cope with the challenges of working in interdisciplinary contexts.
Integrating different knowledge was not an easy task for students. It challenged stu-
dents cognitive abilities to learn and investigate the problem within the complex
social dimensions of working together. Johnson et al. (2007) said that, when groups
are faced with problem-solving and decision-making tasks, some level of controversy
exists with different information, perceptions, and positions among group members.
For educators to foster the controversy of differences in positive and constructive
senses, it is important to emphasize that group members understand the contribution
of others knowledge and empower their expertise experience of problem solving and
also nurture their students willingness to support members who need assistance to
complete their goals. However, it is also important to recognize that the controversy
of differences can be challenged by the authority and the power of different
members. Schmitz and Winskel (2008) found that students in a low middle ability
group developed more dynamic explanatory talk than a lowhigh ability group.
When there is a large gap in knowledge levels between two groups, students might
encounter motivational problems to talk and interact with each other than in
similar ability groups (Pauli, Mohiyeddini, Bray, Fran Michie, & Street, 2008;
Schmitz & Winskel, 2008). The issues of authority in knowledge can create an
unequal power distribution among group members regarding who makes decisions
and how those decisions are enforced; thus, engagement and interactions may get dis-
couraged among group members (Bruffee, 1993).
As previous researchers on the challenges of social interactions in group work have
suggested (e.g. Blatchford et al., 2003; Kirschner et al., 2009; Kutnick & Kington,
2005; Schmitz & Winskel, 2008), it was important for us to be aware of possible ten-
sions in grouping two different grade levels throughout this study. In their
collaborative problem-solving task, the partnership between HS and MS students and

having a leader in each group affected the group dynamics and decision-making pro-
cesses. From observations and video data from the field trip, the researchers noted
that a few MS students showed some degree of shyness and a passive attitude
towards their seniors during the field studies and some tension emerged from the
gap of knowledge and power relationship among some groups. We also found that stu-
dents experienced a certain level of frustration and patience in their communications
from their reflective notes as discussed in the finding section. These issues are often
unavoidable in this type of grouping. However, while acknowledging the challenges
and limitations existing prior to our study, we attempted to understand how the
dynamics of differences were experienced and dealt with and resolved among stu-
dents. Our research endeavoured to further understand how students dealt with the
challenges of knowledge integration and difficulties of communication within group
structures and processes. Based on our research findings here, we observed some posi-
tive outcomes. For example, the mutual and positive support relationships between
students emerged over time. Students were willing to support each other, often
through the roles of mentor and mentee, even if the teachers did not ask them to
do so. The HS students assisted MS students tasks and the MS students strived to
listen and comprehend the HS students explanations. Even if some languages and
techniques were challenging for the MS students to communicate and understand,
oftentimes they were willing to learn from their seniors and excited about the
extended levels of knowing and learning. Both groups practiced and enhanced their
communication skills through the process of explaining and listening to others. The
controversy of differences in knowledge, power, and authority were often overcome
by mutual understandings. In this case, the maturity of social interactions is the key
aspect for knowledge integration among members.
Phuong-Mai, Terlouw, Pilot, and Elliott (2009) pointed out that respect and care
often emerge naturally in the relationships between MS and HS students and
affects the dynamics of collaboration among group members. They continued to
explain that shared Confucian traditions among their research participants often
helped this relationship emerge. Thus, the notion of a mentormentee relationship
in this study may be explained through social and cultural expectations existing
within the culture of Singapore. In the local culture, it is regarded as a virtue that
MS students are to respect HS students and the older students take care of younger
ones. Based on these shared values and cultural expectations, the students might natu-
rally have been more willing to play mentor and mentee in their group work. Because
the two groups were from different grade levels, it might have been easier for them to
accept differences and develop their positive attitudes towards the other group. Within
the context of these cultural norms, the HS students were expected to care for their
juniors and MS students were to listen to and seek help from their seniors. The
researchers observed that HS students were patient about MS students mistakes or
lack of knowledge and took the time to explain more difficult concepts and research
process and guiding them carefully. A few HS students wrote that the process required
more patience on their behalf but that it was a rewarding experience. Many MS
students expressed in their reflections that they admired and appreciated what HS stu-
dents did for them during their field trip. They developed more respect for their older
peers and interest in the project. The underlying cultural values and conventions
seemed to have helped them create unique relationships among their peers and over-
come some conflicts of differences in knowledge and authority.
Students knowledge integration in this study required the interplay of cognitive
and social learning (Figure 2). The need of knowledge exchange through problem
solving helped develop students ability to collaborate and meet the challenges revol-
ving around interdisciplinary contexts. This in turn helped develop and transform the
students subsequent interactions and relationships with each other. The mutual
respect and care played a critical role to cope with the differences in knowledge and
age, inequality of power, and issues of psychological safety among group members
and also develop MS students cognitive levels of thinking significantly. This is
especially true when HS students helped MS students develop and practice their
roles in more effective group work. The students cognitive ability and social inter-
actions were interdependent so as to complete their interdisciplinary tasks. It suggests
that cognitive thinking and social interactions inseparably influence each others
development and are possibly intertwined within the shared socio-cultural assump-
tions and values existing in society.
As the new vision of scientific literacy emphasizes the participation and engagement
of science in a society (Yore, 2012; Zollman, 2012), it is critical to enhance students
knowledge construction and application in a collaborative problem-solving context.
When students are involved in problem-solving tasks on socioscientific and environ-
mental issues, they cognitively and socially learn how to collaborate and participate
in decision-making and further develop the responsibility of knowing and collabora-
tive action as learners and problem solvers in a knowledge-based community. In
this regard, implementing a collaborative problem-solving process in school science
teaching could be a meaningful way to develop interdisciplinary knowledge building
and enhance the participation of scientific literacy within the next generation of stu-
dents. This study suggests that teachers attentiveness to design and the facilitation of
students collaboration in group tasks would be critical to enhance the knowledge-
building processes. Tasks would need to be designed that encourages students to
exchange knowledge and learn from each other so that they could acknowledge
Figure 2. The process of students knowledge integration

interdependence of knowledge and collaboration. The interplay of students different

backgrounds needs to be thoroughly examined during collaboration. As this study
shows, the difficulties of different academic abilities could be overcome by unexpected
aspects such as the social and cultural expectations shared among students, which
were inevitably intertwined with students cognitive knowledge development.
Limitations and Further Research

The collaborative problem-solving contexts (task design and grouping) suggested in
this study were meaningful pedagogies of providing secondary school students with
the opportunity and experience of interdisciplinary knowledge building and learning

that also fosters collaborative skills and attitudes. This study was conducted within
outdoor environmental contexts, however, it could also have been implemented in
the science classroom as well depending on the context and nature of the problems
students may be engaged in. However, there are limitations in this study that
remain as well. The grouping design was not evaluated comparatively within the
context of other grouping strategies. Even though we found much value and effective-
ness of mixed groups on student learning in this collaboration, we cannot suggest that
this grouping was the most effective way to develop student knowledge outcomes and
collaborative interactions in all inquiry projects. The social context of this study situ-
ated the research findings and discussions within the unique environments of the
schools, teachers, and communities and may not apply to students in other places
and cultures. As a result, this could limit the findings and applications of this discus-
sion in other academic and socio-cultural contexts. However, as researchers we
suggest that it is more than worthwhile to pay attention to how cultural assumption
and practices that are embedded in society could affect students social interactions
and knowledge integration in interdisciplinary problem solving.
Within those limitations, this study raises new questions for further research: What
would be more effective grouping strategies for students cognitive and social knowl-
edge development? How could decisions and consensus be negotiated in mixed- and
same-grade groups? What would be differences in group dynamics between classroom
and outdoor settings? How can social and cultural contexts affect students cognitive
knowledge and decision-making on tasks in various societies? Understanding these
questions could deepen the discussion on cognitive and social pedagogy of collabora-
tive problem solving and develop a more efficient model of students knowledge inte-
gration. Further research is required to discuss the effects and concerns of task and
group design in order to increase students cognitive and social learning and creativity
of problem solving for the future society.
Note
1. The terms interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary are often used interchangeably without definite
distinction among researchers (Collin, 2009; Scott & Hofmeyer, 2007; Zierhofer & Burger,
2007). However, some researchers have made a distinction between these two approaches,
explaining that an interdisciplinary approach is implemented in the same discipline field to create
the synthesis of knowledge whereas a transdisciplinary approach combines knowledge and
thoughts of different disciplines (Klein, 2004; Ramadier, 2004) in order to readjust the different
levels of realities. Some view that a transdisciplinary approach embraces interdisciplinary
aspects, going beyond the boundaries of different disciplines (Stokols, 2006; Stokols et al.,
2003; Zierhofer & Burger, 2007). Despite those distinctions, the two inevitably embrace knowl-
edge integration among different disciplines and collaborative interactions among members. In
this work, we use the term interdisciplinary in the broad context of knowledge integration and
interplay amongst different domains of knowledge (e.g. cognitive and social), disciplines (e.g.
sciences, social sciences, humanities, etc.), and human actors.
References
Aikenhead, G. (2006). Science education for everyday life: Evidence-based practice. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Akkerman, S., Van den Bossche, P., Admiraal, W., Gijselaers, W., Segers, M., Simons, R.-J., &
Kirschner, P. (2007). Reconsidering group cognition: From conceptual confusion to a bound-
ary area between cognitive and socio-cultural perspectives? Educational Research Review, 2(1),
3963.
Barrett, G. (2001). Closing the ecological cycle: The emergence of integrative science. Ecosystem
Health, 7(2), 7984.
Blatchford, P., Kutnick, P., Baines, E., & Galton, M. (2003). Toward a social pedagogy of classroom
group work. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(1), 153 172.
Bruffee, K. (1993). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of
knowledge. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Collin, A. (2009). Multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary collaboration: Impli-
cations for vocational psychology. International Journal of Educational and Vocational Guidance,
9(1), 101 110.
Cornelius, L.L., & Herrenkohl, L.R. (2004). Power in the classroom: How the classroom environ-
ment shapes students relationships with each other and with concepts. Cognition and Instruc-
tion, 22(4), 467 498.
DeBoer, G. (2000). Scientific literacy: Another look at historical and contemporary meanings and
its relationship to science education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(6),
582 601.
Dillon, J., & Scott, W. (2002). Perspectives on environmental education-related research in science
education [Editorial]. International Journal of Science Education, 24(11), 11111117.
Duch, B., Groh, S., & Allen, D. (2001). Why problem-based learning: A case study of institutional
change in undergraduate education. In B. Duch, S. Groh, & D. Allen (Eds.), The power of
problem-based learning (pp. 3 12). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Eilam, B. (2002). Strata of comprehending ecology: Looking through the prism of feeding relations.
Science Education, 86(5), 645671.
Fancovicova, J., & Prokop, P. (2011). Plants have a chance: Outdoor educational programmes alter
students knowledge and attitudes towards plants. Environmental Education Research, 17(4),
537 551.
Feng, L. (2012). Teacher and student responses to interdisciplinary aspects of sustainability edu-
cation: What do we really know? Environmental Education Research, 18(1), 3143.
Flick, U. (2006). An introduction of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
van Ginkel, W., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Group information elaboration and group decision
making: The role of shared task representations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 105(1), 8297.
Godemann, J. (2008). Knowledge integration: A key challenge for transdisciplinary cooperation.

Environmental Education Research, 14(6), 625 641.
Hayashi, A., & Ewert, A. (2006). Outdoor leaders emotional intelligence and transformational lea-
dership. Journal of Experiential Education, 28(3), 222 242.
Hmelo-Silver, C., & Barrows, H.S. (2008). Facilitating collaborative knowledge building. Cognition
and Instruction, 26(1), 4894.
Howe, C., Tolmie, A., Greer, K., & Mackenzie, M. (1995). Peer collaboration and conceptual
growth in physics: Task influences on childrens understanding of heating and cooling. Cogni-
tion and Instruction, 13(4), 483 503.
Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in postsecondary
and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 1529.
Kelson, A., & Distlehorst, L. (2000). Groups in problem-based learning (PBL): Essential elements
in theory and practice. In D.H. Evensen & C.E. Hmelo (Eds.), Problem-based learning: A
research perspective on learning interactions (pp. 167 184). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kirschner, F., Paas, F., & Kirschner, P.A. (2009). A cognitive load approach to collaborative learn-
ing: United brains for complex tasks. Educational Psychology Review, 21(1), 3142.
Klein, J.T. (2004). Prospects for transdisciplinarity. Futures, 36(4), 515526.
Klein, J.T. (2006). Afterword: The emergent literature on interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary
research evaluation. Research Evaluation, 15(1), 7580.
Korfiatis, K. (2005). Environmental education and the science of ecology: Exploration of an uneasy
relationship. Environmental Education Research, 11(2), 235 248.
Kutnick, P., & Kington, A. (2005). Childrens friendships and learning in school: Cognitive enhance-
ment through social interaction? The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(4), 521 538.
Lakin, L. (2006). Science beyond the classroom. Journal of Biological Education (Society of Biology),
40(2), 8990.
Lee, J., & Duek, E. (2000). Whose group is it, anyway? Equity of student discourse in problem-
based learning (PBL). In D.H. Evensen & C.E. Hmelo (Eds.), Problem-based learning: A research
perspective on learning interactions (pp. 75108). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Littlepage, G., Robinson, W., & Reddington, K. (1997). Effects of task experience and group experi-
ence on group performance, member ability, and recognition of expertise. Organizational Be-
haviour and Human Decision Processes, 69(2), 133 147.
Miller, R. (2006). Twenty first century science: Insights from the design and implementation of a
scientific literacy approach in school science. International Journal of Science Education,
28(13), 1499 1521.
Nielsen, J., Du, X., & Kolmos, A. (2010). Innovative application of a new PBL model to interdis-
ciplinary and intercultural projects. International Journal of Electrical Engineering Education,
47(2), 174188.
Norris, S.P., & Phillips, L.M. (2003). How literacy in its fundamental sense is central to scientific
literacy. Science Education, 87(2), 224240.
Oliveira, A., & Sadler, T. (2008). Interactive patterns and conceptual convergence during student
collaborations in science. Journal of Research in science Teaching, 45(5), 634 658.
Pauli, R., Mohiyeddini, C., Bray, D., Fran Michie, F., & Street, B. (2008). Individual differences in
negative group work experiences in collaborative student learning. Educational Psychology,
28(1), 4758.
Phuong-Mai, N., Terlouw, C., Pilot, A., & Elliott, J. (2009). Cooperative learning that features a
culturally appropriate pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal, 35(6), 857 875.
Polk, M., & Knutsson, P. (2008). Participation, value rationality and mutual learning in transdisci-
plinary knowledge production for sustainable development. Environmental Education Research,
14(6), 643653.
Prichard, J., Bizo, L., & Stratford, R. (2006). The educational impact of team-skills training: Pre-
paring students to work in groups. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 119 140.
Psaltis, C., Duveen, G., & Perret-Clermont, A.-N. (2009). The social and the psychological:
Structure and context in intellectual development. Human Development, 52(5), 291 312.
Ramadier, T. (2004). Transdisciplinarity and its challenges: The case of urban studies. Futures,
36(4), 423439.
Scardamalia, M. (2002). Collective cognitive responsibility for the advancement of knowledge. In B.
Smith (Ed.), Liberal education in a knowledge society (pp. 6798). Chicago, IL: Open Court.
Schmitz, M., & Winskel, H. (2008). Towards effective partnerships in a collaborative problem-
solving task. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 581 596.
Scott, C., & Hofmeyer, A. (2007). Acknowledging complexity: Critically analyzing context to
understand interdisciplinary research. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 21(5), 491501.
Slingsby, D., & Barker, S. (2003). Making connections: Biology, environmental education and
education for sustainable development. Journal of Biological Education, 38(1), 4 6.
Spelt, E., Biemans, H., Tobi, H., Luning, P., & Mulder, M. (2009). Teaching and learning in inter-
disciplinary higher education: A systematic review. Educational Psychology Review, 21(4),
365 378.
Stokols, D. (2006). Toward a science of transdisciplinary action research. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 38(1 2), 6377.
Stokols, D., Fuqua, J., Gress, J., Harvey, R., Phillips, K., Baezconde-Garbanati, L., . . . Trochim, W.
(2003). Evaluating transdisciplinary science. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 5(1), S21S39.
Sweet, M., & Michaelsen, L. (2007). How group dynamics research can inform the theory and
practice of postsecondary small group learning. Educational Psychology Review, 19(1), 3147.
Sweet, M., & Pelton-Sweet, L.M. (2008). The social foundation of team-based learning: Students
accountable to students. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 116, 29 41.
Taconis, R., Ferguson-Hessler, M., & Broekkamp, H. (2001). Teaching science problem solving: An
overview of experimental work. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(4), 442 468.
Tolmie, A., Keith, J., Topping, K., Christie, D., Donaldson, C., Howe, C., . . . Thurston, A. (2010).
Social effects of collaborative learning in primary schools. Learning and Instruction, 20(3),
177 191.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Wells, G. (2002). Learning and teaching for understanding: The key role of collaborative knowledge
building. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Social constructivist teaching: Affordances and constraints (pp. 1 42).
Oxford: Elsevier.
Wheelan, S. (2005). Group processes: A developmental perspective (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Yang, M. (2009). Making interdisciplinary subjects relevant to students: An interdisciplinary
approach. Teaching in Higher Education, 14(6), 597 606.
Yarrow, F., & Topping, K.J. (2001). Collaborative writing: The effects of metacognitive prompting
and structured peer interaction. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2), 261 282.
Yore, L. (2012). Science literacy for allmore than a slogan, logo, or rally flag!. In K.C.D. Tan &
M. Kim (Eds.), Issues and challenges of science education: Moving forward (pp. 5 23). The
Netherlands: Springer.
Yore, L.D., Pimm, D., & Tuan, H.-L., (Eds). (2007). Languagean end and a means to
mathematical literacy and scientific literacy [Special issue]. International Journal of Science
and Mathematics Education, 5(4), 557769.
Zhang, J., Scardamalia, M., Reeve, R., & Messina, R. (2009). Designs for collective cognitive
responsibility in knowledge-building communities. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(1),
744.
Zhang, L., Ayres, P., & Chan, K. (2011). Examining different types of collaborative learning in
a complex computer-based environment: A cognitive load approach. Computers in Human
Behavior, 27(1), 9498.
Zierhofer, W., & Burger, P. (2007). Disentangling transdisciplinarity: An analysis of knowledge

integration in problem-oriented research. Science Studies, 20(1), 51 74.
Zittoun, T., Baucal, A., Cornish, F., & Gillespie, A. (2007). Collaborative research, knowledge and
emergence. Integrative Psychological & Behavioural Science, 41(2), 208 217.
Zollman, A. (2012). Learning for STEM literacy: STEM literacy for learning. School Science and
Mathematics, 112(1), 1219.
Appendix 1. Research Questions for Six Groups
Groups Research questions

Insect studies What are the insects that may damage or help the crops?
How are you going to catch the insects?
How are you going to identify the insects?
Soil chemical What are the nutrients suitable for planting these crops?
What chemicals are you looking for in the soil? (e.g. Ca2+, . . . )
How are you going to determine the chemicals in the soil?
Soil physical What are the types of soil suitable for planting these crops?
properties What are the physical properties of the soil that you are measuring for the
soil? (e.g. pH, particle size, water content, . . . )
How are you going to determine the soil physical properties?
Water chemical What do you mean by water pollution?
quality In particular, what are the chemicals that constitute water pollution?
How are you doing to determine the chemicals in the water?
Bio-indicator How are you going to carry out the Brine Shrimp test?
How do you determine the state of health of the water?
Weather station Research into alternative forms of energy (Solar, Wind)
How much electricity can you generate from the sun and wind? (e.g. how
much solar radiation can produce how much electricity? how much wind
can produce how much electricity?)
What are the weather conditions that suitable for planting these crops?
What are the temperature and the amount of water needed for these crops?
Appendix 2. An Example of Data Sampling Sites on the Farm Map

Appendix 3. A Case Study


Cola Borat Ive

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cola Borat Ive

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Universitat Politcnica de Valncia]

On: 21 October 2014, At: 13:08

International Journal of Science

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.752116

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Mijung Kima and Hoe Teck Tanb

Keywords: Collaboration; Group work; Environmental problem solving; Interdependence;

# 2013 Taylor & Francis

Interdisciplinary Approach and Knowledge Integration

knowledge, but an expansion, assimilation, and creation of exchanged knowledge

Collaborative Problem Solving

negotiation, group membersindividually and collectivelyexperience the issues of

The Study Site

Design of Field Study: The structure of task and grouping

Figure 1. Overview of collaboration process during field study

Data Collection and Analysis

Table 1. The summary of data collection

Study process Data source and collectiona

video and written data. We attempted to understand students cognitive (knowledge

Table 2. The summary of thematic coding process

munication, which became another important theme in this study. We paid

Development of Knowledge Exchange

Table 3. Dimensions of knowledge in students decision-making

Data from scientific Insect studies v v

tions on building an eco-village. The following excerpt is from their conversation.

Recognition on Responsibility of Knowledge

The recognition of interdependency of knowledge building and decision-making

Deepening the Level of Thinking for Secondary School Students

positive group interactions and engagements developed among MS and HS students.

HS students. Much research has suggested positive outcomes of outdoor education

Challenges of Decision-making and Communication

MS students also experienced difficulties of being involved in decision-making as their

ties, most of these students developed positive relationships among themselves

Learning to Cope with Differences

MS students turned out to be a mentormentee relationship, rather than an equal or

Respect and Care as Mutual Relationships

collaborative problem-solving task, the partnership between HS and MS students and

Figure 2. The process of students knowledge integration

interdependence of knowledge and collaboration. The interplay of students different

Limitations and Further Research

the opportunity and experience of interdisciplinary knowledge building and learning

Godemann, J. (2008). Knowledge integration: A key challenge for transdisciplinary cooperation.

Zierhofer, W., & Burger, P. (2007). Disentangling transdisciplinarity: An analysis of knowledge

Appendix 1. Research Questions for Six Groups

Groups Research questions

Appendix 2. An Example of Data Sampling Sites on the Farm Map

Appendix 3. A Case Study

You might also like