Table Of ContentPHYSICS 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
