Gresser, PhD Dissertation (2006)

A Study of Social Interaction and Teamwork in Reformed Physics Laboratories

P. Gresser, Ph.D. Dissertation, E. F. Redish (advisor), (2006). (html TOC and abstract)

Abstract: It is widely accepted that, for many students, learning can be accomplished most effectively through social interaction with peers, and there have been many successes in using the group environment to improve learning in a variety of classroom settings. What is not well understood, however, are the dynamics of student groups, specifically how the students collectively apprehend the subject matter and share the mental workload.

This research examines recent developments of theoretical tools for describing the cognitive states of individual students: associational patterns such as epistemic games and cultural structures such as epistemological framing. Observing small group interaction in authentic classroom situations (labs, tutorials, problem solving) suggests that these tools could be effective in describing these interactions.

Though conventional wisdom tells us that groups may succeed where individuals fail, there are many reasons why group work may also run into difficulties, such as a lack or imbalance of knowledge, an inappropriate mix of learning styles, or a destructive power arrangement. This research explores whether or not inconsistent epistemological framing among group members can also be a cause of group failure. Case studies of group interaction in the laboratory reveal evidence of successful groups employing common framing, and unsuccessful groups failing from lack of a shared frame.

This study was conducted in a large introductory algebra-based physics course at the University of Maryland, College Park, in a laboratory designed specifically to foster increased student interaction and cooperation. Videotape studies of this environment reveal that productive lab groups coordinate their efforts through a number of locally coherent knowledge-building activities, which are described through the framework of epistemic games. The existence of these epistemic games makes it possible for many students to participate in cognitive activities without a complete shared understanding of the specific activity's goal. Also examined is the role that social interaction plays in initiating, negotiating, and carrying out these epistemic games. This behavior is illustrated through the model of distributed cognition.
An attempt is made to analyze this group activity using Tuckman's stage model, which is a prominent description of group development within educational psychology. However, the shortcomings of this model in dealing with specific cognitive tasks lead us to seek another explanation. The model used in this research seeks to expand existing cognitive tools into the realm of social interaction. In doing so, we can see that successful groups approach tasks in the lab by negotiating a shared frame of understanding. Using the findings from these case studies, recommendations are made concerning the teaching of introductory physics laboratory courses.

Russ, PhD Dissertation (2006)

A Framework for Recognizing Mechanistic Reasoning in Student Scientific Inquiry

R. S. Ross, Ph.D. Dissertation, D. Hammer (advisor), (2006). (html TOC and abstract)

Abstract:  A central ambition of science education reform is to help students develop abilities for scientific inquiry. Education research is thus rightly focused on defining what constitutes "inquiry" and developing tools for assessing it. There has been progress with respect to particular aspects of inquiry, namely student abilities for controlled experimentation and scientific argumentation. However, we suggest that in addition to these frameworks for assessing the structure of inquiry we need frameworks for analyzing the substance of that inquiry.

In this work we draw attention to and evaluate the substance of student mechanistic reasoning. Both within the history and philosophy of science and within science education research, scientific inquiry is characterized in part as understanding the causal mechanisms that underlie natural phenomena. The challenge for science education, however, is that there has not been the same progress with respect to making explicit what constitutes mechanistic reasoning as there has been in making explicit other aspects of inquiry.

This dissertation attempts to address this challenge. We adapt an account of mechanism in professional research science to develop a framework for reliably recognizing mechanistic reasoning in student discourse. The coding scheme articulates seven specific aspects of mechanistic reasoning and can be used to systematically analyze narrative data for patterns in student thinking. It provides a tool for detecting quality reasoning that may be overlooked by more traditional assessments.

We apply the mechanism coding scheme to video and written data from a range of student inquiries, from large group discussions among first grade students to the individual problem solving of graduate students. While the primary result of this work is the coding scheme itself and the finding that it provides a reliable means of analyzing transcript data for evidence of mechanistic thinking, the rich descriptions we develop in each case study help us recognize continuity between graduate level learning and elementary school science: part of what students are able to do in elementary school finds its way to graduate school. Thus this work makes it possible for researchers, curriculum developers, and teachers to systematically pursue mechanistic reasoning as an objective for inquiry.

Scherr & Elby, AIP Conference Proceedings (2006)

Enabling informed adaptation: Open-source physics worksheets integrated with implementation resources

R. E. Scherr & A. Elby, in AIP Conference Proceedings 883, Physics Education Research Conference, P. R. Heron, L. McCullough & J. Marx (Eds.), p 46-49 (2006).

Abstract: Instructors inevitably need to adapt even the best reform materials to suit their local circumstances. We offer a package of research-based, open-source, epistemologically-focused mechanics tutorials, along with the detailed information instructors need to make effective modifications and offer professional development to teaching assistants. In particular, our tutorials are hyperlinked to instructor's guides that include the rationale behind the various questions, advice from experienced instructors, and video clips of students working on the materials. Our materials thus facilitate their own implementation and develop instructor expertise with PER-based instructional materials.

Scherr, Russ, Bing & Hodges, Phys Rev Special Topics: PER (2006)

Initiation of student-TA interactions in tutorials

R. E. Scherr, R. S. Russ, T. J. Bing & R. A. Hodges, Phys. Rev. - Special Topics: Physics Education Research 2, 020108-020116 (2006). (html link to journal article)

Abstract: At the University of Maryland we videotaped several semesters of tutorials as part of a large research project. A particular research task required us to locate examples of students calling the teaching assistants TAs over for assistance with a physics question. To our surprise, examples of this kind of interaction were difficult to find. We undertook a systematic study of TA-student interactions in tutorial: In particular, how are the interactions initiated? Do the students call the TA over for help with a particular issue, does the TA stop by spontaneously, or does the worksheet require a discussion with the TA at that point? The initiation of the interaction is of particular interest because it provides evidence of the motivation for and purpose of the interaction. This paper presents the results of that systematic investigation. We discovered that the majority of student-TA interactions in tutorial are initiated by teaching assistants, confirmed our initial observation that relatively few interactions are initiated by students, and found, further, that even fewer interactions are worksheet initiated. Perhaps most importantly, we found that our sense of who initiates tutorial interactions—based on extensive but informal observations—is not necessarily accurate. We need systematic investigations to uncover the reality of our classroom experiences.

Hammer & van Zee, Seeing the science in children's thinking (2006)

Seeing the science in children's thinking: Case studies of student inquiry in physical science

D. Hammer & E. H. van Zee, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. (Book and DVD)

Description: Observing and listening to children while they inquire into the physical sciences is difficult. There’s lots to see and hear, but unless you know what to look and listen for, you might only see a noisy blur of activity. Seeing the Science in Children’s Thinking is a field guide to the science classroom with authentic examples presented in written and video form. It’s a great way for staff developers to train teachers’ eyes and ears to pick up the analysis and ideas of students as they occur in the wild of classroom conversations.

David Hammer and Emily Van Zee explain the scientific process, describe how research suggests students conceptualize inquiry, and offer ways to encourage scientific investigation in the elementary and middle grades. Then they offer six in-depth case studies of class discussion from grades 1 through 8, each keyed to clips of minimally edited in-the-classroom footage on the companion DVD-ROM. The case studies include not only a thorough description by each teacher, but also detailed facilitator’s notes for running effective staff-development workshops using the footage. The clips present up to thirty minutes of authentic, uninterrupted class discussions with optional subtitles. Additionally, full transcripts of the video clips are available as printable files on the DVD-ROM.

Evidence of children’s scientific thinking is all around the classroom, but it takes a skilled teacher to locate it. With Seeing the Science in Children’s Thinking your teachers can sharpen their senses, discover a wealth of information about how their students approach science, and create instruction that’s individualized and responsive.

May, Hammer & Roy, Science Education (2006)

Children's analogical reasoning in a 3rd-grade science discussion

D. B. May, D. Hammer & P. Roy, Science Education, 90(2), p 316-330 (2006). (link to journal article)

Abstract: Expert scientific inquiry involves the generation and use of analogies. How and when students might develop this aspect of expertise has implications for understanding how and when instruction might facilitate that development. In a study of K-8 student inquiry in physical science, we are examining cases of spontaneous analogy generation. In the case we present here, a third-grader generates an analogy and modifies it to reconcile his classmates' counterarguments, allowing us to identify in these third-graders specific aspects of nascent expertise in analogy use. Promoting abilities and inclinations such as these children display requires that educators recognize and respond to them.

Rosenberg, Hammer & Phelan

Multiple epistemological coherences in an eighth-grade discussion of the rock cycle

S. A. Rosenberg, D. Hammer & J. Phelan, Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(2), p 261-292 (2006). (link to journal article)

Abstract: Research on personal epistemologies (Hofer & Pintrich, 2002) has mostly conceptualized them as stable beliefs or stages of development. On these views, researchers characterize individual students' epistemologies with single, coherent descriptions. Evidence of variability in student epistemologies, however, suggests the need for more complex models. Hammer and Elby (2002) proposed modeling personal epistemologies as comprised of manifold epistemological resources. This difference in ontology—the form research attributes to cognitive structure—accounts for variability: The activation of these epistemological resources depends on context. Our purpose in this article is to argue that it also accounts for coherences in student epistemologies, in particular for multiple local coherences. We advance this argument using a case study of a 15-min discussion by a group of eighth graders about the “rock cycle” (the cyclic transformations of rock among different forms). We begin with evidence of the students' working from a stable, coherent epistemological stance. Then, after a brief, purely epistemological intervention by the teacher, the evidence indicates they are working from a different but also coherent and stable epistemological stance.

Redish, NSF Conf: Reconsidering the Textbook (2006)

Whither/Wither the Physics Textbook in an Active/Inactive Era?

E. F. Redish, thinkpiece based on poster presented at the NSF conference, Reconsidering the Textbook: A Workshop, Washington, DC (May 24-26, 2006).

Abstract: The textbook still seems to be the core element in the large introductory university physics course, determining the content, pace, notation, and orientation taken by the instructor and students. Yet a number of trends seem to portend deep change in how the textbook is conceived and used. Few instructors are satisfied with the textbook: “It covers too many topics, it does them in the wrong order, it doesn’t do things in the way I like.” Few students actually read the textbook. Research has increasingly demonstrated that “active learning” is much more effective for students than the “transmissionist telling” that seems to be the model for most textbooks. And finally, an upcoming generation of students seems much more comfortable with obtaining their information on-line, often with active game-like components and video. In this paper, I explore some ways text can be adapted to the current university physics learning environment that is increasingly incorporating more active learning elements. I then consider the future and whether web documents with interactivity will lead to the textbook’s just “withering away” despite its apparent current vitality.

Redish, Scherr & Tuminaro, The Physics Teacher (2006)

Reverse Engineering the Solution of a "Simple" Physics Problem: Why learning physics is harder than it looks

E. F. Redish, R. E. Scherr & J. Tuminaro, published in a slightly abbreviated version in The Physics Teacher, 44, p 293 (May 2006).

Abstract:  Problem solving is the heart and soul of most college physics and many high school physics courses. The “big idea” is that physics tells you more about a physical situation than you thought you knew — and you can quantify it if you use fundamental physical principles expressed in mathematical form. Often, the results of your problem solving can lead you to understand and rethink your intuitions about the physical world in new and more productive ways. As a result, physics is a great place (some of us would claim the best place) to learn how to use mathematics effectively in science.

As physics teachers, we often stress the importance of problem solving in learning physics. Unfortunately, many of our students appear to find problem solving very difficult. Sometimes they generate ridiculous answers and seem satisfied with them. Sometimes they can do the calculations but not interpret the implications of the results. Sometimes, despite apparent success in problem solving, they seem to have a poor understanding of the physics that went into the problems.1 We give them explicit instructions on how to solve problems (“draw a picture,” “find the right equation,” …) but it doesn’t seem to help.

We might respond that they need to take more math prerequisite classes, but in the algebra-based physics class at the University of Maryland, almost all of the students have taken calculus and earned an A or a B. Many of them have been successful in classes such as organic chemistry, cellular biology, and genetics. Why do they have so much trouble with the math in an introductory physics class?

As part of a research project to study learning in algebra-based physics,2 the Physics Education Research Group at the University of Maryland videotaped students working together on physics problems. Analyzing these tapes gives us new insights into the problems they have in using math in the context of physics. One problem is that they have inappropriate expectations as to how to solve problems in physics (some of it learned, perhaps, in math classes). This is discussed elsewhere.3 A second problem seems to lie with the instructors. As instructors, we may have misconceptions about how people think and learn, and this has important implications about how we interpret what our students are doing.

In this paper, we want to consider one example of students working on a physics problem that showed us in a dramatic fashion that we had failed to understand the work the students needed to do in order to solve an apparently “simple” problem in electrostatics. Our critical misunderstanding was failing to realize the level of complexity that we had built into our own “obvious" knowledge about physics.