PHYSICS PROBLEM SOLVING

(^) Although Group 4D made some fundamental errors in constructing their force-
vector diagram, they equally shared in the solution of the problem. Their use of humor,
which on the surface seems to alleviate tension, also serves to encourage the group and
keep the solution progressing. Their grade on this problem was 6 points. (Although their
force-vector diagram was in error, their plan and execution correctly translated the
diagram they drew into two equations. An incorrect force-vector diagram correctly
translated received more points than an incorrect translation of an incorrect diagram.)
Extension to The Remaining Groups
The procedure just described in detail for these four groups was next extended to
include the remaining 10 groups. Several quantitative “data” and qualitative
“descriptions” help to form a picture of each group. These data and descriptions are a
form of triangulation, but not in the strict sense of using different data to explore the
same hypothesis. Rather these measures and descriptions allow viewing the groups from
slightly different perspectives. They also helped me to think about the issue of validity.
Note again that the four basic “reference points” from which I made these descriptions
are: (1) The videotapes and transcripts, (2) quantitative data from the video log sheets
and course records, (3) written problem solutions, and (4) the subjective observations by
myself, the transcription assistant, and my advisor.
I analyzed each remaining transcript in the manner just described. I examined the
group solutions through the “Plan” because I discovered that often some important aspect
of the physics surfaced during this portion of the solution. The most difficult aspect of
the task was defining episodes. These principles were followed:

 New episodes begin with a new thought and/or a new speaker.