ABSTRACT
We compared cognitive processing of two complex arithmetic word problems by college students randomly assigned to four different situating tool and social contexts: individualized problem solving with pen and paper; pair problem solving with pen and paper; individualized problem solving on TAPS, a computer-based problem solving tool; and collaborative problem solving on TAPS. Although they solved identical word problems, TAPS users differed from users of conventional tools in that they required relatively more time for problem solving, spent more time in planning activity, and proportionately less time reading. With respect to the influences of social (versus individual) problem solving, collaboration also produced significantly more planning behavior, such that the combined use of TAPS and collaboration produced a marked increase in planning. Also, significantly more behavior associated with metacognitive monitoring occurred in the protocols for pairs. There was no evidence that use of the TAPS tool changed the social nature of the collaboration. However, a qualitative analysis yielded interesting information regarding negotiation processes underlying pair problem solving. For example, we saw specifically some reasons why untrained pair problem solving does not proceed naturally and smoothly. Results are interpreted in terms of situated cognition theory, although symbolic processing theories also can explain much of the data.
