Research has demonstrated that collaboration can lead to more creative, effective, and comprehensive solutions. It can be considered the principal way of dealing with scientific and civic issues in the contemporary world. In some cases, it may be the only feasible approach to addressing complex problems (Salas et al., 2018). Collaborative problem-solving (CPS) is broadly defined as working with others toward a common goal (Hesse et al., 2015). CPS can be conceptualized as the joint effort of a dyad or small group whose members are coequal in terms of competence, responsibility, and power, enabling them to participate equally in solving a relatively novel and complex task.

CPS within peer groups is promoted as a practical learning approach, enabling individual members to gain a deeper understanding of the problem and potential solutions (Baker et al., 2020). The benefits of CPS depend on specific conditions, such as participants openly sharing diverse perspectives and constructively resolving socio-cognitive conflicts (Perret-Clermont, 2004). However, spontaneous peer interactions are often unproductive (Howe & Mercer, 2007; Kuhn, 2015). Commonly observed issues include certain participants dominating the interaction while others disengage (e.g., Stepanović & Baucal, 2011), a reluctance or inability among more competent members to share their insights (Roscoe & Chi, 2008), and behaviors characterized by indifference or excessive self-reliance (Tartas et al., 2010).

Present study

This qualitative case study is part of a broader project aimed at developing a distinct approach for fostering young people's capacities for constructive CPS. In the first phase of our project, we analyzed spontaneous CPS interactions among secondary school students as they worked on problem-solving tasks related to themes of community relevance (i.e., ecology, teen behavior, media, and education).

For the purpose of this case study, we focused on the topic of education and selected the triad that demonstrated the highest levels of success in both the quality of collaboration and the quality of the solutions they proposed. Participants had not previously encountered this topic within the school curriculum.

The triad was invited to consider two distinct approaches to education and propose a framework for organizing teaching that both motivates students and prepares them for future professional, personal, and social challenges. The first approach emphasizes the importance of “hard work” and effort as essential components of successful learning. From this perspective, schools should be spaces for deep thinking and rigorous effort, as complex knowledge systems require dedication and perseverance. Conversely, the second approach highlights that students are most motivated to learn when engaged in activities that are interesting and relevant to their experiences. This perspective posits that knowledge can be effectively acquired through play, provided it sparks curiosity and is meaningfully linked to students' prior experiences. The participants were instructed to develop a proposal for structuring teaching and learning that synthesizes these contrasting perspectives and provides additional suggestions as part of their solution. The overarching goal was to design an educational model that fosters intrinsic motivation in students while equipping them to navigate future challenges across various domains of life.

This study aims to provide a deeper understanding of (1) successful spontaneous collaboration, complementing the insights from previously used quantitative measures for assessing collaboration, and (2) the problem-solving process that enabled the group to arrive at an excellent solution.

Sample and procedure The selected triad consisted of three female grammar school students, who are part of a larger study sample comprising 192 second-year students from 12 secondary schools in Belgrade, Serbia. The students were grouped into 64 same-gender triads, each consisting of classmates. Within these groups, they collaboratively solved a real-life problem relying only on joint dialogue and a tablet with internet access. Measures: Selection criteria for the triad chosen for the case study CPS Observational Grid. The quality of collaboration was assessed based on video recordings of CPS sessions. Each session was evaluated using a 22-item observational grid designed to measure four dimensions of productive CPS: (1) socio-cognitive aspects, (2) socio-emotional aspects, (3) task management, and (4) relationship management. Out of a maximum possible score of 16, the selected triad's quality of CPS received a total score of 14.3 (3.9 for socio-cognitive aspects, 4 for socio-emotional aspects, 3.2 for task management, and 3.2 for relationship management), which was the highest score among all triads participating in the study. CPS product assessment protocol. The quality of the CPS product was evaluated by scoring the solution forms submitted by each triad at the end of the session. The scoring protocol targeted eight specific aspects of the proposed solution: adequacy, relevance, realism and elaboration, incorporation of multiple perspectives, quality of argumentation, use of digital resources, creativity, and overall quality. Of all the triads that were solving problems about education, the selected triad was the only one that received the maximum score. Qualitative analysis of the selected CPS video data We analyzed the video recording of CPS interaction within the selected triad, as well as transcripts of the participant’s verbal communication. In analyzing the video content, we partially relied on the Visual-Verbal Video Analysis (VVVA) framework (Fazeli et al., 2023). We divided the video recording (134 minutes long) into eight segments—units of analysis—corresponding to the phases of work that the triad independently arrived at: reading the task, verifying problem comprehension, internet search, revision, critical review of the solution, developing final concept, final product revision, writing the final product. We constructed extraction matrices by leveraging the VVVA framework, adapted to our research question. Two researchers used the matrices independently to track the (1) specificity of communication among the participants (tone of speech, gestures/body movements, warmth/avoidance), (2) emotions, and (3) process of problem-solving.

Personality, Emotions, and Engagement in CPS Interaction Our analysis complemented the CPS Observational Grid in areas crucial for productive interaction (Baucal et al., 2023) that were not captured by the quantitative measure. Namely, the Observational Grid only partially captured emotions through socio-emotional aspects and relationship management. Our analysis allowed us to explore further the recognition of personality differences, emotional expression, and strategies for managing emotions and peer responses. Examining these aspects seemed essential given the role of personality (Jolić Marjanović et al., 2023) and emotional intelligence in CPS (Altaras et al., 2024). An analysis of extraction matrices related to communication and emotions revealed that two triad members were highly relaxed. This deepened their interaction but also created a barrier between them and the third member, who exhibited some reservations in certain phases of the task. However, the challenge was largely overcome by offering encouragement to the more reserved member (e.g., "Feel free to speak", "Just go on", "Well done") and having a brief conversation about her anxiety. Problem-solving process The spontaneous problem-solving process, guided solely by the task instructions, was compared to the widely recognized IDEAL problem-solving model (Bransford & Stein, 1993). The findings indicate that the participants focused primarily on anticipating and evaluating solutions ("A" in IDEAL), followed by identifying and defining the problem ("I" and "D"). Their primary problem-solving strategy was drawing on personal experiences, which they collectively interpreted and compared with examples of "good practices" from other schools and countries. Our study contributes to CPS research by exploring collaboration's nuanced dynamics and emotions, offering more profound insights into the problem-solving process beyond quantitative measures. Additionally, gaining insight into how young people approach education problems was of particular importance, as it sheds light on the ideas and challenges they perceive in improving the educational system.

Altaras, A., Nikitović, T., Mojović Zdravković, K., Krstić, K., Rajić., M., Pavlović Babić, D., & Jolić Marjanović, Z. (2024). The role of emotional intelligence in collaborative problem solving: A systematic review. Canadian Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000401 Baucal, A., Jošić, S., Stepanović Ilić, I., Videnović, M., Ivanović, J., & Krstić, K. (2023). What makes peer collaborative problem solving productive or unproductive: A qualitative systematic review. Educational Research Review, 41, article 100567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100567 Bransford, J. D., & Stein, B. S. (1993). The IDEAL Problem Solver: A Guide for Improving Thinking, Learning, and Creativity (2nd edn). Freeman. Fazeli, S., Sabetti, J., & Ferrari, M. (2023). Performing qualitative content analysis of video data in social sciences and medicine: The Visual-Verbal Video analysis method. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22, 1–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231185452 Hesse, F., Care, E., Buder, J., Sassenberg, K., & Griffin, P. (2015). A framework for teachable collaborative problem-solving skills. In P. Griffin, & E. Care (Eds.), Assessment and teaching of 21st century skills: Methods and approach (pp. 37–56). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9395-7_2 Howe, C., & Mercer, N. (2007). Children’s social development, peer interaction and classroom learning (Primary Review Research Survey 2/1b). Cambridge University Press. Jolić Marjanović, Z., Krstić, K., Rajić, M., Stepanović Ilić, I., Videnović, M., & Altaras Dimitrijević, A. (2023). The Big Five and collaborative problem solving: A narrative systematic review. European Journal of Personality, 0(0), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070231198650 Kuhn, D. (2015). Thinking together and alone. Educational Researcher, 44, 46–53. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15569530 Perret-Clermont, A. N. (2004). Socijalna interakcija i intelektualni razvoj [Social interaction and intellectual development]. Zavod za udžbenike i nastavna sredstva. Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. (2008). Tutor learning: The role of explaining and responding to questions. Instructional science, 36, 321–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-007-9034-5 Salas, E., Reyes, D. L., & McDaniel, S. H. (2018). The science of teamwork: Progress, reflections, and the road ahead. American Psychologist, 73, 593–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000334 Stepanović, I., & Baucal, A. (2011). Asymmetrical peer interaction and formal operational thinking: What happens in dialogues between peers in unsuccessful dyads. In A. Baucal, F. Arcidiacono and N. Buđevac (Eds.), Studying interaction in different contexts: A qualitative view (pp. 47–90). Institute of Psychology. Tartas, V., Baucal, A., & Perret-Clermont, A. N. (2010). Can you think with me? In K. Littleton & C. Howe (Eds.), Educational dialogues. Understanding and promoting productive interaction (pp. 64–82). Routledge.