PHYSICS PROBLEM SOLVING

(^) Several factors may have contributed to this group’s dysfunctional situation.
Based on cooperative learning research and practice, I can hypothesize three specific
factors: First, the seating arrangement prohibited true face-to-face interaction. Second,
the gender imbalance may have caused EW (male) to tune out SV (female). Third, the
relatively homogeneous ability of the group may have inhibited skeptical questioning.
An interesting question about this is, why, despite such poor functioning, does the group
still produce a partially correct, only slightly below-average written solution to the
problem? One reason may be that their written solution is largely the work of EW who
probably had the best grasp of the three group members of the physics of the problem.
Group 4C provides an excellent example of the lack of co-construction. In Table
3-9 (page 87), the group illustrates how they jump from thought to thought. There is no
resolution of which diagram they are constructing and which forces belong on the
diagram. The discourse is disorderly and does not flow from person to person or from
thought to thought. The Claims often are not supported with appropriate Grounds,
Warrants, and Backings. Hence I came to the conclusion that Group 4C is the one group
of the 14 that did not consistently engage in co-construction. Their lack of co-
construction will be seen in discussing the other research questions as well. We came to
refer to Group 4C as “the different group.” These kinds of observations led me to believe
that this group is not co-constructing their argument.