Teamwork by groups of three, four and five did equally well compared with one another. There was no advantage to adding people beyond a trio in teamwork.

In life, all people regardless of their age, sex, belief, etc, surely must face and tackle problems. This problem solving mechanism is a unique feature, that only present in human and has been with every body since they are born. Babies must face problems related to basic survival on their first days on earth. When they grow up, still they have to face problems related to social relationship, learning their first “ABC” and many more. The same pattern continue until they begin acting as adults when they have to face much bigger problems, such as problems related to work, etc. So problem solving is an immutable fact in human life.

Despite all those facts, there are still many people knocked out by their problems. One of the reasons is the varying perspective toward problems. Some people would consider problems as obstacles to success while other perceive them as challenges and opportunities to grow. These different approaches to problems will generate different results. Those who might consider problems, as obstacles will be drowned by their problems, while others can emerge and grow by the challenges.

There are times when we don’t have the ability to solve problems by our self. That’s the time when we need others for support. There are many terms to describe this scenario; teamwork, collaboration, cooperation and many more. One question that may arise related to teamwork is how many people should involve in teamwork to make it optimal? Surely extra heads would do much favor than one, but from scientific view there’s a strong need to specify what number exactly needed?

Triggered by this question, researchers at University of Illinois did the study on this matter, teamwork. The investigators enrolled 760 of the school's students to solve complex letter and word problems. Some toiled as individuals while others functioned in-group of two, three, four or five. The groups of three, four and five performed better than any set of individuals.

The dynamic is sensitive, however. Teams of two performed at the same level as two separate people, suggesting it’s too small to foster the dynamics that create optimal problem solving. Also interesting is that groups of three, four and five did equally well compared with one another; there was no advantage to adding people beyond a trio.

Study leader Patrick R. Laughlin says that in addition to tackling workplace challenges, problem-solving groups might enhance classroom learning. Further research is needed to determine whether student groups perform better than individuals do in academic settings and, if so, at what ages and test.