Collaborative intellectual engagement is held in high regard in contemporary educational thought as a pedagogical practice of broad value to K–12 students. To what extent is this enthusiasm warranted? Is the practice uniformly productive, or does variability exist in the contexts in which collaboration is effective, the mechanisms involved, and the objectives achieved? In addition to examining these questions, this article suggests further questions that might be addressed with the objective of establishing a more comprehensive base of evidence to substantiate the practice of collaborative learning. Finally, the article reconsiders why collaborative cognition should be a critical concern.
AllenD. E.DonhamR. S.BernhardtS. A. (2011). Problem-based learning. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2011(128), 21–29. doi:10.1002/tl.465
2.
AmelsvoortM.AndriessenJ.KanselaarG. (2007). Representational tools in computer-supported collaborative argumentation-based learning: How dyads work with constructed and inspected argumentative diagrams. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16, 485–521.
3.
AmesG.MurrayF. (1982). When two wrongs make a right: Promoting cognitive change by social conflict. Developmental Psychology, 18, 894–897.
4.
AndriessenJ.BakerM.SuthersD. (2003). Arguing to learn: Confronting cognitions in computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
5.
AsterhanC.SchwarzB. (2007). The effects of dialogical and monological argumentation on concept learning in evolutionary theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 626–639.
6.
AzmitiaM. (1988). Peer interaction and problem solving: When are two heads better than one?Child Development, 59, 87–96.
7.
BarronB. (2003). When smart groups fail. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12, 307–359.
8.
BearisonD.MagzamenS.FilardoE. (1986). Socio-cognitive conflict and cognitive growth in young children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 32, 51–72.
9.
BrownellC. (2011). Early developments in joint action. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 2, 193–211.
10.
CaponN.KuhnD. (2004). What’s so good about problem-based learning?Cognition and Instruction, 22, 61–79.
11.
ChiM. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 73–105. doi:10.1111/j.1756-8765.2008.01005
12.
CrowellA.KuhnD. (2014). Developing dialogic argumentation skills: A three-year intervention study. Journal of Cognition and Development, 15, 363–381.
13.
DedeC. (2010). Comparing frameworks for 21st century skills. In BellancaJ.BrandtR. (Eds.), 21st century skills: Rethinking how students learn (pp. 51–76). Bloomington IN: Solution Tree Press.
14.
DillenbourgP.BakerM.BlayeA.O’MalleyC. (1996). The evolution of research on collaborative learning. In SpadaE.ReimanP. (Eds.), Learning in humans and machine: Towards an interdisciplinary learning science (pp. 189–211). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
15.
DimantR.BearisonD. (1991). Development of formal reasoning during successive peer interactions. Developmental Psychology, 27, 277–284.
16.
DoiseW. (1990). The development of individual competencies through social interaction. In FootH. C.MorganM. J.ShuteR. H. (Eds.), Children helping children (pp. 43–64). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
17.
FeltonM.KuhnD. (2001). The development of argumentive discourse skills. Discourse Processes, 32, 135–153.
18.
Garcia-MilaM.GilabertS.ErduranS.FeltonM. (2013). The effect of argumentative task goal on the quality of argumentative discourse. Science Education, 97, 497–523.
19.
GijbelsD.DochyF.Van den BosscheP.SegersM. (2005). Effects of problem based learning: A meta-analysis from the angle of assessment. Review of Educational Research, 71, 27–61.
GraffG. (2003). Clueless in academe: How schooling obscures the life of the mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
22.
GrauV.WhitebreadD. (2012). Self and social regulation of learning during collaborative activities in the classroom: The interplay of individual and group cognition. Learning and Instruction, 22, 401–412.
23.
GrueneisenS.WymanE.TomaselloM. (2014). Children use salience to solve coordination problems. Developmental Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/desc.12224
HendersonA. M. E.WoodwardA. L. (2011). “Let’s work together”: What do infants understand about collaborative goals?Cognition, 121, 12–21.
26.
Hmelo-SilverC. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn?Educational Psychology Review, 16, 235–266.
27.
Hmelo-SilverC.DuncanR. G.ChinnC. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning. Educational Psychologist, 42, 99–107.
28.
HoweC. (2010). Peer dialogue and cognitive development. In LittletonK.HoweC. (Eds.). Educational dialogues: Understanding and promoting productive interaction (pp. 32–47). Oxford, UK: Routledge.
29.
IordanouK. (2010). Developing argument skills across scientific and social domains. Journal of Cognition and Development, 11, 293–327.
30.
IordanouK. (2013). Developing face-to-face argumentation skills: Does arguing on the computer help?Journal of Cognition and Development, 14, 292–320.
31.
IordanouK.ConstantinouC. (in press-a). Developing pre-service teachers’ evidence-based argumentation skills on socio-scientific issues. Learning & Instruction.
32.
IordanouK.ConstantinouC. (in press-b). Supporting use of evidence in argumentation through practice in argumentation and reflection in the context of a Socratic learning environment. Science Education.
33.
JewettB.KuhnD. (2015). Social science problem-based learning as a tool in developing scientific thinking skills in low-achieving students. Manuscript submitted for publication.
34.
KapurM. (2008). Productive failure. Cognition and Instruction, 26, 379–424.
35.
KapurM. (2012). Designing for productive failure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21, 45–83.
36.
KapurM. (2014). Comparing learning from productive failure and vicarious failure. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23, 651–677. doi: 10.1080/10508406.2013.819000
37.
KhaitV. (2014). Making use of the dual functions of evidence in adolescents’ argumentation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Teachers College, Columbia University.
KoriatA. (2012). When are two heads better than one and why?Science, 20, 360–362.
40.
KuhnD. (2005). Education for thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41.
KuhnD.CrowellA. (2011). Dialogic argumentation as a vehicle for developing young adolescents’ thinking. Psychological Science, 22, 545–552.
42.
KuhnD.GohW.IordanouK.ShaenfieldD. (2008). Arguing on the computer: A microgenetic study of developing argument skills in a computer-supported environment. Child Development, 79, 1311–1329.
43.
KuhnD.HembergerL.KhaitV. (2014). Argue with me: Argument as a path to developing students’ thinking and writing. Bronxville, NY: Wessex Press.
44.
KuhnD.MooreW. (2015). Argument as core curriculum. Learning: Research and Practice. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1080/23735082.2015.994254
45.
KuhnD.PeaseM. (2009). The dual components of developing strategy use: Production and inhibition. In WatersH. S.SchneiderW. (Eds.), Metacognition, strategy use, and instruction (pp. 135–59). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
46.
KuhnD.PeaseM.WirkalaC. (2009). Coordinating effects of multiple variables: A skill fundamental to causal and scientific reasoning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 103, 268–284.
47.
KuhnD.ZillmerN.CrowellA.ZavalaJ. (2013). Developing norms of argumentation: Metacognition, epistemological, and social dimensions of developing argumentive competence. Cognition and Instruction, 31, 456–496.
48.
LaddG.Kochenderfer-LaddB.ViscontiK.EttekalI.SechlerC.CortesK. (2013). Grade-school children’s social collaborative skills: Links with partner preference and achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 51, 152–183.
49.
LittletonK. (2011). Social interaction and learning. In JarvelaS. (Ed.), Social and emotional aspects of learning (pp. 149–155). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
50.
MichaelsS.O’ConnorC.ResnickL. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27, 283–297.
51.
MinsonJ.MuellerJ. (2012). The cost of collaboration: Why joint decision making exacerbates rejection of outside information. Psychological Science, 23, 219–224.
52.
MoshmanD.GeilM. (1998). Collaborative reasoning: Evidence for collective rationality. Thinking and Reasoning, 4, 231–248.
53.
MuldnerK.LamR.ChiM. (2014). Comparing learning from observing and from human tutoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 69–85.
PeaseM.KuhnD. (2011). Experimental analysis of the effective components of problem-based learning. Science Education, 95, 57–86.
56.
PhelpsE.DamonW. (1989). Problem solving with equals: Peer collaboration as a context for learning mathematics and spatial concepts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 639–646.
57.
PinkwartN.McLarenB. (2014). Educational technologies for teaching argumentation skills. Oak Park, IL: Bentham Science Publishers.
58.
RapantaC.Garcia-MilaM.GilabertS. (2013). What is meant by argumentative competence? An integrative review of methods of analysis and assessment in education. Review of Educational Research, 83, 483–520.
59.
ResnickL. B. (1991). Shared cognition: Thinking as social practice. In ResnickL.LevineJ.TeasleyS. (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 1–22). Hyattsville, MD: American Psychological Association.
60.
SampsonV.ClarkD. (2009). The effect of collaboration on the outcomes of argumentation. Science Education, 93, 448–484.
61.
ScardamaliaM.BereiterC. (2006). Knowledge building: Theory, pedagogy, and technology. In SawyerK. (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 97–118). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
62.
SchwartzD. L. (1995). The emergence of abstract dyad representations in dyad problem solving. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 4, 321–354.
63.
SchwarzB.LinchevskiL. (2007). The role of task design and argumentation in cognitive development during peer interaction: The case of proportional reasoning. Learning and Instruction, 17, 510–531.
64.
SchwarzB.NeumanY.BiezungerS. (2000). Two wrongs may make a right if they argue together!Cognition and Instruction, 18, 461–494.
65.
SearsD.ReaginJ. (2013). Individual vs. collaborative problem solving: Divergent outcomes depending on task complexity. Instructional Science, 41, 1153–1172.
66.
ShaenfieldD.MooreW. (2009, May). Arguing on the computer: Alone and together. Paper presented at the Teachers College Columbia University International Educational Technology Conference, New York, NY.
TomaselloM.HamannK. (2012). Collaboration in young children. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 1–12.
69.
TrillingB.FadelC. (2009). 21st century skills: Learning for life in our times. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
70.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
71.
WaltonD. (1989). Dialogue theory for critical thinking. Argumentation, 3, 169–184.
72.
WertschJ. V. (1979). From social interaction to higher psychological processes: A clarification and application of Vygotsky’s theory. Human Development, 22, 1–22.
73.
WiedmannM.LeachR.RummelN.WileyJ. (2012). Does group composition affect learning by invention?Instructional Science, 40, 711–730.
74.
WirkalaC.KuhnD. (2011). Problem-based learning in K-12 education: Is it effective and how does it achieve its effects?American Educational Research Journal, 48, 1157–1186.
