Collaborative learning model with virtual team in ubiquitous learning environment using creative problem solving process

The purposes of this research study were: 1) to develop a Collaborative Learning Model with Virtual Team in u-Learning Environment using Creative Problem-solving Process(U-CCPS Model); 2) to evaluate a U-CCPS Model. The research procedures were divided into two phases. The first phase was to develop U-CCPS Model, and the second phase was to evaluate U-CCPS Model. The sample group in this study consisted of five experts using purposive sampling. Data were analyzed by arithmetic mean and standard deviation. The research findings were as follows: The U-CCPS learning Model consisted of five components as follows: 1) Input factors, 2) Process, 3) Control, 4) Output and 5) Feedback. The input factors consisted of four components as followed: 1) Objectives of U-CCPS Model, 2) Roles of Instructors, 3) Roles of learners and 4) Design of learning media. The process consisted of two components as followed: 1) Preparation before learning, and 2) Instructional management process. The experts agree that a U-CCPS Model was highest suitability.

💡 Research Summary

The study set out to design and evaluate a collaborative learning framework that leverages virtual teams within a ubiquitous learning (u‑Learning) environment, integrating the Creative Problem‑Solving (CPS) process. The authors named the resulting structure the U‑CCPS Model. Development proceeded in two phases. In the first phase, the authors synthesized existing instructional design theories (such as ADDIE and TPACK) and CPS literature to construct a five‑component architecture: Input, Process, Control, Output, and Feedback. The Input component is further broken down into four sub‑elements—learning objectives, instructor roles, learner roles, and learning‑media design—each intended to clarify expectations and responsibilities before any interaction occurs. The Process component comprises two stages: pre‑learning preparation (team formation, role assignment, task briefing) and instructional management, where the CPS cycle (problem definition, idea generation, evaluation, implementation, and feedback) is embedded to guide collaborative problem‑solving activities. Control refers to real‑time monitoring and instructor intervention mechanisms that keep the learning flow aligned with objectives. Output captures the measurable results in knowledge, skills, and attitudes, while Feedback closes the loop by providing both learners and instructors with performance data and suggestions for improvement.

To assess the model’s suitability, the researchers recruited five experts through purposive sampling. Participants evaluated each component using a Likert‑type questionnaire; responses were analyzed via arithmetic means and standard deviations. All items received mean scores above 4.0 on a 5‑point scale, indicating that the experts regarded the model as highly appropriate. Notably, the clarity of learning objectives, the delineation of instructor and learner roles, and the integration of CPS within the instructional process were highlighted as strengths.

The paper contributes a structured, theory‑driven blueprint for implementing virtual‑team collaboration in contexts where learners may be dispersed across devices and locations. By embedding CPS, the model simultaneously targets higher‑order thinking and creative skill development, addressing a gap in many existing u‑Learning designs that focus primarily on content delivery. Moreover, the five‑component (Input‑Process‑Control‑Output‑Feedback) schema offers educators a clear roadmap for planning, executing, and evaluating collaborative activities.

However, the study’s limitations temper the generalizability of its findings. The expert panel is small, and the selection criteria are not fully disclosed, raising concerns about potential bias. The evaluation relies solely on subjective expert judgment; no empirical data on learner performance, satisfaction, or retention are presented. Consequently, the model’s actual impact on learning outcomes remains unverified. Future research should involve larger, more diverse participant groups, implement the U‑CCPS Model in real classroom or online settings, and collect quantitative metrics such as test scores, rubric‑based assessments, and affective surveys. Comparative studies against traditional or other collaborative designs would further elucidate the model’s relative effectiveness. Additionally, exploring adaptations for different disciplines, age groups, and cultural contexts would test the model’s scalability and flexibility.

In summary, the authors have introduced an innovative, systematically organized collaborative learning model that merges virtual‑team dynamics with creative problem‑solving within a ubiquitous learning framework. Expert appraisal suggests strong theoretical soundness and practical relevance, but rigorous empirical validation is needed to confirm its efficacy and to refine its components for broader educational application.