Table Of Content

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 (cid:1) 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 co- construction 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 co- constructing 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 The Role of Requests 163 Summary 167 Question 3c. Do the groups have a preferential means to support argument construction? 169 Summary 173 CHAPTER 5 - DISCUSSION OF RESULTS Research Summary 177 Reliability, Validity, and Generalizability Revisited 184 Descriptive Validity 186 Interpretive Validity 187 Theoretical Validity 189 Generalizability Validity 190 Significance of the Research 190 Suggestions for future Qualitative and Quantitative Research 193 Curriculum and Instruction Concerns 196 Epilogue 198 BIBLIOGRAPHY 199 APPENDIX A - GLOSSARY 205 APPENDIX B - THE SIX PROBLEMS 209 APPENDIX C - DETERMINING A PROTOTYPE EPISODE 213 APPENDIX D - PROTOTYPE EPISODE FLOWCHARTS 221 LIST OF FIGURES Chapter 1 1-1 At The Gasthaus 4 1-2 Four Points of Reference 23 Chapter 2 2-1 At The Gasthaus 51 2-2 Toulmin Analysis of At The Gasthaus. 53 Chapter 3 3-1 Group 4A, Episode 5, lines 30-38, Flowchart 105 3-2 Key to Original Flowchart Symbols 105 3-3 Group 4D Prototype Episode 109 3-4 Group 4B, Episode 16, Original Flowchart 112 3-5 Key to Revised Flowchart Symbols 114 3-6 Group 4B, Episode 16, Re-Diagrammed 117 3-7 Prototype Patterns 118 3-8 Group 4A Prototype Episode 119 3-9 Group 4C, Prototype Episode 120 3-10 Group 4B Prototype Episode Type 1 121 3-11 Group 4B Prototype Episode Type 2 121 Chapter 4 4-1 Groups Begin with Claims 135 4-2 Alternate and Modified Claim Use 136 4-3 Elaboration of an Alternate Claim 137 4-4 Process of Controversy 146 4-5 Elaboration of Claims 171 Chapter 5 5-1 Reference Points 185