The goal of this research was to develop a model for team problem solving by controlling the level of problem structures so that Inventive gifted Students in elementary school can acquire the skills to resolve various types of problems within a team environment. This educational model will eventually reveal the interactive nature that exists within the team problem solving process that will in turn, shed light to the direction of appropriate educational materials for Inventive gifted Students.
This study first composed a group of Inventive gifted Students of the same intellectual level based on the academic grading scores in order to conduct a true experimental design. Then, the study applied the 1-factor factorial design that is based on the three independent variables that consist of the education of team problems with well-structured problems(WS-TPSL), the education of team problems with moderately structured problems(MS-TPSL), and the education of team problems with ill-structuralized problems IS-TPSF. The experiment was conducted for 2 hours per week for 6 weeks, comprising a total of 12 hours.
The experiment participants consisted of Inventive gifted Students in the 5th grade at G elementary school that is under the supervision of G City’s Western Metropolitan Educational Office. The team interactivity was monitored by a recording webcam to compile clips and videos of the experimental proceedings. Then, the collected data were analyzed by 2 independent researchers with the InterAct 8 software coding system. The Bales Interaction Process Analysis Frame (1950), which is a representative method used by the observing researcher and which utilizes a coding frame, was applied by the research team in order to examine the interactivity among the participating Inventive gifted Students.
The following conclusions were deduced from this experimental study. First, given the varying levels of structured problems and based on the type of team problem solving education, there were more tendencies from the students to propose their own opinions rather than asking for the others’ opinions. In particular, the ratio of A positive social-emotional interactivity and D negative social-emotional interactivity was 1 to 1. This implies that it is necessary to find measures to increase the positive social-emotional interactivity.
Second, even though the teachers conducted ice-breaking exercises in order to encourage team interactivity within the elementary school inventive gifted student teams, when discussing and presenting the answers to ill-structured problems students showed significantly high frequency and extended time in levels of S6 hostile stubbornness. So, students were frequently hostile towards other students’ opinions or expressing themselves emotionally and increasingly stubborn with their own perspectives. This implies that there is a need to educate and train Inventive gifted Students on effective communication skills and techniques.
Third, it was seen that when presented with the well-structured problem WS-TPSL or a moderately structured problem MS-TPSL, which is the type of problems that students are currently most frequently exposed to, students showed high instances of T2 asking instructions or asking for repetition of the problem. On the other hand, when students were introduced to an ill-structure problem IS-TPSL, students marked higher tendencies to T6 sharing proposals or methods that were creative and encouraged higher more complex thinking. Therefore, it is necessary to contemplate strategies that will stimulate expansive though processes and higher thinking procedures within well-structure and moderately structure problems.
Fourth, when examining the frequency of movement of lower level criteria within the interaction process, because the problem solving order and process is already outlined within WS-TPSL upon S3 relaxing the tension there are large occurrences in T2 proposing solutions and explaining the proposal in depth. On the other hand, for MS-TPSL, the students reacted with T4 proposing their individual opinions and T2 proposing solutions. Finally, for IS-TPSL, students tended to T5 question the proposals and actually S6 showed hostility. This implies that when observing the team creativity development of Inventive gifted Students, when all the information is provided then this discourages active thinking processes, and students will simply tent to literally use what information they have or even just apply the few main concepts presented within the problem.
Fifth, upon observing the period of interactivity for WS-TPSL, it was seen that rather than interaction between team members regarding the well-structured problem students were more prone to discussing tedious everyday stories or S3 jokes and other niceties. Similarly, when presented with MS-TPSL, although students shared various opinions students did not engage deeply into presented opinions by studying the potential as a solution by researching into the topics but rather delved immediately into the next step of producing models and assuming the opinions as valid solutions without verification. On the other hand, with an IS-TPSL, there was a fair distribution of question and answering and in particular, students were T6 presenting suggestions and T5 producing creative answers to the proposed questions in a consistent manner. However, in the process of integrating the ideas and actually producing the final model, there were conflicts and frictions in regards to the intellectual rights and properties of parts of the idea. So, students need assistance and guidance in resolving conflicts and arguments as well as in effective communication skills and techniques.
Based on the results of this study, several proposals can be devised for future related studies. The team problem solving education model implemented within this study were devised in a logical manner after researching related models and consulting with related experts. Thus, the same model should be able to be applied by simply varying the level of structuralization of the educational material within inventive gifted class curriculum. Also, within the process of integrating the opinions and solutions for an ill-structured problem, there were high levels of negative social-emotional interactivity among the students. Therefore, there needs to be an effective strategy to teach students of effective communication and decision-making skills as well as a pedagogical study into the detailed teaching strategies.
Second, the varying levels of structuralization of the presented problems can be altered in their content and re-introduced in different ways to the inventive gifted class curriculum. When these problems are being re-introduced in the classrooms, the teachers need to be flexible and structure the problem appropriately as to not provide too much information that will direct the students to a single way of finding the solution. Instead, the problems need to be structured so that students will actively search for different methods to seek the answer and based upon intensive and accurate research find the right answer led by a creative process.
Third, there needs to be a study that examines the correlation between the individual team''s problem solving method and the interaction process.