Development of Group Cognition in Online Collaborative Problem-Solving Processes

Abstract

Group cognition is a cognitive science concept that studies how groups think, learn, and work. Most research investigates group cognition as a qualitative-oriented phenomenon. From a quantitative perspective, this research proposes a measure equation of group cognition, conducts empirical research during online collaborative problem-solving, and uses multiple quantitative methods to examine group cognition complemented with qualitative microanalysis. Specifically, social network analysis, behavioral pattern analysis, and quantitative content analysis are used to measure three groups’ group cognition. Results show that only one group successfully develops group cognition through synergistic coordination of social, behavioral, and cognitive activities. Students in the other two groups either take separate responsibilities to cooperate or have unequal participations, which indicates an inadequacy of group cognition. The extent that three groups develop group cognition is consistent with the order of groups’ final performance scores. Research analytical and pedagogical implications are provided to advance research and practice of group cognition.

Examining the effect of a genetic algorithm-enabled grouping method on collaborative performances, processes, and perceptions

“…With the support of automatic groups in online platforms, the instructors can further modify groups with other factors such as task types, difficulty levels, and course content (Wang et al, 2007 ). Moreover, online platforms can help instructors to automatically acquire student data via drop-in quiz and online questionnaire tools and convert discussion content information into dynamic social interactive characteristic data (e.g., Chen et al, 2018 ; Ouyang, Chen, et al, 2021 ; Ouyang, Ling, et al, 2021 ). In summary, future design and implementation of grouping methods should consider three critical factors, namely input variables of student characteristics, choice of other algorithms and integration of grouping function in online platforms.…”

“…This research used social network analysis (SNA) and quantitative content analysis (QCA) to analyze those two dimensions. On the social interaction dimension (see Table 2 ), this research used the group-level SNA metrics to uncover groups’ social attributes, including average path length (APL) , density , average degree , average closeness , average betweenness , reciprocity , global clustering coefficients ( GCC) , the inverse coefficient of variation (ICV) of student interaction, and centralization (see Ouyang, Chen, et al, 2021 ; Ouyang, Ling, et al, 2021 ; Ouyang & Scharber, 2017 ). Since students sometimes did not refer to a specific peer during the online discussions, it was difficult to identify the receiver; in this situation, the receiver was denoted as “all” when the network data was processed.…”

A joint evaluation method of regulated‐learning and cognitive quality in collaborative knowledge building

“…The social domain includes social regulation, while the cognitive domain includes knowledge building (Gaševi c et al, 2019). The Conceptual Framework of Group Cognition (Ouyang et al, 2022) has also been proposed, incorporating cognitive, social and behavioural considerations. The cognitive dimension involves idea-centered discourse and thinking about individuals and groups.…”

“…Furthermore, as CKB is a typical cognitive processing activity, the cognitive quality of learners during collaboration has received extensive attention from researchers (Cheng et al, 2021; Hwang et al, 2008; O'Riordan et al, 2021; Zheng et al, 2022). There is a substantial body of research on socially regulated learning (Järvelä et al, 2020; Järvelä et al, 2023; Nguyen et al, 2022; Nguyen et al, 2023) and the development of cognitive quality during CKB (Blooma et al, 2013; Hwang et al, 2008; Fan Ouyang et al, 2021; Ouyang et al, 2022; Wu, 2019). These studies indicate a trend toward using artificial intelligence to analyse socially regulated learning, yet the changing cognitive quality associated with regulated learning has not received adequate attention.…”