Tracing Creative Thinking Patterns in Homogeneous Primary Student Groups during Collaborative Problem Posing

Febriarsita Eka Sasmita; Wiryanto Wiryanto; Aslam Khan

doi:10.26740/eds.v9n2.p170-188

Authors

Febriarsita Eka Sasmita Department of Madrasah Ibtidaiyah Teacher Education, Faculty of Islamic Studies, Sunan Giri University, Surabaya
Wiryanto Wiryanto Department of Elementary Education, Faculty of Education Universitas Negeri Surabaya, Surabaya
Aslam Khan Institute of Teacher Education International Languages Campus, Kuala Lumpur

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.26740/eds.v9n2.p170-188

Keywords:

Creative thinking, Homogeneous ability groups, Collaborative learning, Mathematical problem posing, Primary education

Abstract

Creative thinking is a vital ability that should be nurtured from the primary level, particularly through collaborative learning activities that engage students in mathematical problem posing. This study aims to investigate the patterns of creative thinking exhibited by primary school students working in homogeneous ability groups during collaborative problem-posing tasks. A qualitative descriptive approach was employed, with data collected through classroom observations, field notes, student-generated problem artifacts, and focus group discussions involving six fifth-grade student groups categorized as high-, medium-, and low-ability. The findings reveal distinct creative thinking patterns across ability groups shaped by internal group dynamics. High-ability groups demonstrated strong fluency in generating ideas but showed limited flexibility and novelty due to dominance by one or two members. Medium-ability groups exhibited more balanced participation, resulting in relatively stronger fluency and flexibility, though originality remained moderate. In contrast, low-ability groups displayed minimal indicators of creative thinking, characterized by passive participation and limited engagement. These results highlight a gap between students’ cognitive potential and their collaborative creative performance within homogeneous group settings. The study concludes that creative thinking in homogeneous ability groups is influenced not only by cognitive level but also by the quality of interaction and equitable participation, underscoring the crucial role of teacher facilitation in designing instructional supports that foster inclusive dialogue and creative collaboration.

References

Adams, J. W., & Hitch, G. J. (2022). Children’s mental arithmetic and working memory. In The development of mathematical skills (pp. 153–173). Psychology Press.

An, S., & Zhang, S. (2024). Effects of ability grouping on students’ collaborative problem solving patterns: Evidence from lag sequence analysis and epistemic network analysis. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 51, 101453.

Ashcraft, M. H., & Fierman, B. A. (1982). Mental addition in third, fourth, and sixth graders. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 33(2), 216–234.

Aspers, P., & Corte, U. (2019). What is qualitative in qualitative research. Qualitative Sociology, 42(2), 139–160.

Bailin, S. (1987). Critical and creative thinking. Informal Logic, 9(1).

Barron, B. (2003). When smart groups fail. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 12(3), 307–359.

Bates, T. C., & Gupta, S. (2017). Smart groups of smart people: Evidence for IQ as the origin of collective intelligence in the performance of human groups. Intelligence, 60, 46–56.

Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2010). Nurturing creativity in the classroom. Cambridge University Press.

Berger, M. J., & Gundy, M. (2015). Beyond Collaborative Enquiry In Education. ICERI2015 Proceedings, 884–888.

Bloom, P., & Keil, F. C. (2001). Thinking through language. Mind & Language, 16(4).

Cai, J., & Leikin, R. (2020). Affect in mathematical problem posing: Conceptualization, advances, and future directions for research. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 105, 287–301.

Chiu, M. M., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2016). Statistical discourse analysis: Modeling sequences of individual actions during group interactions across time. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 20(3), 242.

Clifford, M. M. (1991). Risk taking: Theoretical, empirical, and educational considerations. Educational Psychologist, 26(3–4), 263–297.

Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (2014). Designing groupwork: strategies for the heterogeneous classroom third edition. Teachers College Press.

Dillenbourg, P. (1999). What do you mean by collaborative learning? Collaborative-Learning: Cognitive and Computational Approaches., 1–19.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256.

Florida, R., & Mellander, C. (2023). The global creativity index: National creativity ecosystems and their relationship to economic development and inequality. In Global creative ecosystems: A critical understanding of sustainable creative and cultural production (pp. 173–196). Springer.

Florida, R., Mellander, C., & Stolarick, K. (2011). Creativity and prosperity: The global creativity index.

Goos, M. (2004). Learning mathematics in a classroom community of inquiry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(4), 258–291.

Hitchcock, D. (2017). Critical thinking as an educational ideal. In On reasoning and argument: Essays in informal logic and on critical thinking (pp. 477–497). Springer.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., & Chinn, C. A. (2015). Collaborative learning. In Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 363–377). Routledge.

Inganah, S., Darmayanti, R., & Rizki, N. (2023). Problems, solutions, and expectations: 6C integration of 21 st century education into learning mathematics. JEMS: Jurnal Edukasi Matematika Dan Sains, 11(1), 220–238.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365–379.

Klein, S., & Leikin, R. (2020). Opening mathematical problems for posing open mathematical tasks: what do teachers do and feel? Educational Studies in Mathematics, 105(3), 349–365.

Kozlowski, J. S., Chamberlin, S. A., & Mann, E. (2019). Factors that influence mathematical creativity. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 16(1), 505–540.

Leikin, R. (2009). Exploring mathematical creativity using multiple solution tasks. In Creativity in mathematics and the education of gifted students (pp. 129–145). Brill.

Leikin, R., & Sriraman, B. (2022). Empirical research on creativity in mathematics (education): From the wastelands of psychology to the current state of the art. ZDM–Mathematics Education, 54(1), 1–17.

Lou, Y., Abrami, P. C., Spence, J. C., Poulsen, C., Chambers, B., & d’Apollonia, S. (1996). Within-class grouping: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66(4), 423–458.

Luszczynska, A., & Schwarzer, R. (2015). Social cognitive theory. Fac Health Sci Publ, 2015, 225–251.

Makar, K. (2024). Primary teachers’ early and retrospective instructional vision of mathematical inquiry. Journal of Educational Change, 25(1), 173–196.

Matthews, M. S., Ritchotte, J. A., & McBee, M. T. (2013). Effects of schoolwide cluster grouping and within-class ability grouping on elementary school students’ academic achievement growth. High Ability Studies, 24(2), 81–97.

McCall, R. B., & McGhee, P. E. (1977). The discrepancy hypothesis of attention and affect in infants. In The structuring of experience (pp. 179–210). Springer.

Mercer, N. (2002). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. Routledge.

Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking: A sociocultural approach. Routledge.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2018). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. Sage publications.

OECD, P. (2015). Results (Volume V): Collaborative Problem Solving, 2017. OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx. doi. org/10.1787/9789264285521-en.

Phan, H. P., Ngu, B. H., & Yeung, A. S. (2017). Achieving optimal best: Instructional efficiency and the use of cognitive load theory in mathematical problem solving. Educational Psychology Review, 29(4), 667–692.

Raue, M., Lermer, E., Streicher, B., & Slovic, P. (2018). Psychological perspectives on risk and risk analysis. In Psychological Perspectives on Risk and Risk Analysis: Theory, Models, and Applications. Springer.

Reeves, S., Kuper, A., & Hodges, B. D. (2008). Qualitative research methodologies: ethnography. Bmj, 337.

Seligman, M. E., & Hager, J. L. (1972). Biological boundaries of learning.

Silver, E. A. (1997). Fostering creativity through instruction rich in mathematical problem solving and problem posing. Zdm, 29(3), 75–80.

Silver, E. A. (2013). Problem-posing research in mathematics education: Looking back, looking around, and looking ahead. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83, 157–162.

Siswono, T. Y. E. (2010). Leveling Students’creative Thinking In Solving And Posing Mathematical Problem. Journal on Mathematics Education, 1(1), 17–40.

Soames, S. (2015). Rethinking language, mind, and meaning.

Sung, H.-Y., Hwang, G.-J., & Chang, Y.-C. (2016). Development of a mobile learning system based on a collaborative problem-posing strategy. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(3), 456–471.

Sung, H.-Y., Hwang, G.-J., & Chen, S.-F. (2019). Effects of embedding a problem-posing-based learning guiding strategy into interactive e-books on students’ learning performance and higher order thinking tendency. Interactive Learning Environments, 27(3), 389–401.

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.

Tisdell, E. J., Merriam, S. B., & Stuckey-Peyrot, H. L. (2025). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons.

Tomlinson, C. A. (2014). The differentiated classroom: Responding to the needs of all learners. Ascd.

Unesco. (2017). Online Open Access programme and meeting document E2030: education and skills for the 21st century, report.

Verschaffel, L., Schukajlow, S., Star, J., & Van Dooren, W. (2020). Word problems in mathematics education: A survey. ZDM, 52, 1–16.

Vygotsky, L., & Cole, M. (2018). Lev Vygotsky: Learning and social constructivism. Learning Theories for Early Years Practice. UK: SAGE Publications Inc, 68–73.

Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university press.

Webb, N. M. (2013). Information processing approaches to collaborative learning. In The international handbook of collaborative learning (pp. 19–40). Routledge.

Woolley, A., Malone, T. W., & Chabris, C. F. (2015a). Why some teams are smarter than others. New York Times, 16.

Woolley, A., Malone, T. W., & Chabris, C. F. (2015b). Why some teams are smarter than others. New York Times, 16.