PHYSICS PROBLEM SOLVING

[Pages:247]PHYSICS PROBLEM SOLVING IN

COOPERATIVE LEARNING GROUPS

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF

THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

By

MARK HOLLABAUGH

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY December, 1995

PHYSICS PROBLEM SOLVING IN

COOPERATIVE LEARNING GROUPS

Copyright ? 1995 by Mark Hollabaugh All rights reserved. This dissertation may not be reproduced, copied, or distributed in

any form without the permission of the copyright holder.

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to the memory of my grandparents, Herb and Hilda Potter, who were with me at every great step in my life; and to the memory of my uncle, Hank Helmke, a great fifth grade teacher and an even greater uncle.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are numerous people I wish to thank for encouraging me, prodding me, helping me and inspiring me. To my friends and relatives: You will never again hear me say, "I'm sorry, I can't, I have to work on my dissertation." To my former colleagues at WCAL-FM, St. Olaf College, thanks for the tunes that kept me sane on weekend afternoons.

Dr. Konrad Mauersberger, now of the Max Planck Institute, graciously agreed to my videotaping of his Physics 1041 and 1042 students. When I served as Konrad's teaching assistant, I learned much about teaching physics from a master teacher. With out the cooperation of the Physics 1041 and 1042, this research would not have been possible. Thanks gang!

Several other University of Minnesota faculty where helpful: Dr. Frances Lawrenz of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, provided me with references, encouragement, thoughtful questions, and ideas. Dr. David Johnson introduced me to group dynamics. Dr. Don MacEachern taught me everything known about statistical analysis in education, and I apologize to Don that there is only one ANOVA in this dissertation! Dr. Roger Jones asked me to team-teach a calculus-based physics course and introduce cooperative group problem solving to our students. Dr. Kenneth Heller lead the development of the problem-solving strategy and took a active interest in my research.

My fellow science education graduate students kept asking me, "When are you going to finish?" Most of them beat me to the finish line but never hesitated to encourage me: Dr. Rob Lonning, Dr. Ron Keith, Dr. Bruce Palmquist, Dr. Doug Huffman, Dr. Val Olness. I am especially grateful to Ron and Bruce for volunteering to be videotape operators, and to Bruce for his thorough independent evaluations of the 14 group's written solutions. Scott Anderson carefully transcribed the videotapes.

My thanks to the librarians at Normandale Community College who obtained reference materials for me. Joyce Carey and Rex Gaskill of the Speech Communication Department provided me with numerous references on Toulmin and creative conflict in groups. Dr. Bill Chartrand proof read the entire manuscript.

Many former teachers and colleagues encouraged me, expressed an interest in this work and made thoughtful comments: Dr. Jim Cederberg, Dr. Duane Olson, Dr. Dave Nitz, Dr. Dave Dahl, Dr. Bob Jacobel, Dr. Amy Kolan, and former President Mel George all of St. Olaf College; and colleagues from the American Association of Physics Teachers: Allan Van Heuvlen, Thomas Rossing, Herschel Neuman, Fred Goldberg, Curtis Heigelke, Roger Freedman, Peter Urone and Michael Zeilik.

I am grateful to Dr. Roger Johnson (Cooperative Learning and Science Education), Dr. Larry Rudnick (Astronomy), and Dr. Charles Campbell (Physics) for agreeing to serve on my final oral examination committee. The commitment of these faculty to cooperative group problem solving is very much appreciated.

Two people never gave up on me: Dr. Patricia Heller and Dr. Fred Finley, my advisers. Fred asked the hard questions and made me clarify my ideas. Pat, despite her own heavy teaching and research load, always made time for me, always asked the right questions, and never once failed to say "You're doing a great job." I could not have asked for two better advisers. We form a well-functioning cooperative group of three!

ABSTRACT

This doctoral dissertation research investigated the process of argument coconstruction in 14 cooperative problem-solving groups in an algebra-based, college level, introductory physics course at the University of Minnesota. The results of the research provide a rich description of argument co-construction, which, while predicted in previous literature, has not been systematically described. The research was a qualitative, case-study analysis of each group's discussion of the "physics description" portion of the group's problem solution. In a physics description physics concepts and principles are use to qualitatively analyze the problem. Transcripts were made from videotapes and the analysis focused on sequential groups of statements, called episodes, instead of isolated, individual statements. The groups' episodes were analyzed and described in terms of Stephen Toulmin's argument structure which consists of claims, grounds, warrants, and backings.

In 13 of these 14 cooperative problem-solving groups, students engaged in coconstructing an argument. The evidence for this is that the claim making shifted among group members, and the lower performance students often provided important components of the solution in the form of skeptical questioning or grounds, warrants, and backings. This means the physics description was a group product and not the work of the best individual in the group. This finding supports previous research.

Individual groups adopted a "group dynamic" and showed a self-consistent argument pattern as they co-constructed a physics description. Group members used additional claim types: "Modified Claims" clarify initially correct or slightly ambiguous claims and "Alternate Claims" correct initially incorrect or very ambiguous claims. These additional claims allowed the groups to engage in "creative controversy." The groups used grounds, warrants, and backings to support their claims. Their backings preferred the professor over the teaching assistant or the textbook.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

iv

ABSTRACT

vi

LIST OF FIGURES

x

LIST OF TABLES

xii

CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

4

Purpose and Research Questions

11

Overview of the Research Design

11

Assumptions and Rationale for a Qualitative, Case-Study Design

13

Methodological Issues and Limitations of the Study

15

Significance of the Study

25

CHAPTER 2 - PROCEDURES

The Role of the Researcher

27

Research Context and Setting

28

Theoretical Foundations

35

Problem Solving Strategy

35

Cooperative Learning

41

Data Collection Procedures

47

Data Analysis Procedures

50

Initial Transcript Coding

50

Identification of Statement Types Using Descriptions of the Session

Four Groups

54

Additional Quantitative and Qualitative Data 61

Summary

66

CHAPTER 3 - PATTERNS WITHIN A GROUP

Argument Co-Construction

68

Question 1. Do these fourteen problem-solving groups engage in argument

co-construction as they complete a physics description?

69

Episodes and Interaction Analysis

70

Episode Delineation

73

Examples of Coded Discussions

77

Extension to The Remaining Groups

100

Summary

101

Question 2. Are there self consistent argument co-construction patterns

within a group?

102

Episode Flowcharts

103

Prototype Flowcharts

106

Multiple Claims in an Episode

110

Does a Group Have a Self-Consistent Pattern of Argument

Construction?

118

Co-Construction of the Argument Revisted

122

Summary

131

CHAPTER 4 - PATTERNS BETWEEN GROUPS

Question 3. Are there similarities in the argument co-construction patterns

between the fourteen groups?

134

Question 3a. Do their argument constructions begin or end with a Claim?

134

Question 3b. What roles do Modified Claims and Alternate Claims play in

the argument co-construction process of these groups?

136

Why do Some Groups Use Alternate Claims?

137

Creative Controversy

139

Why Do Some Groups Not Use Alternate Claims?

155

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download