PHYSICS PROBLEM SOLVING

(^) Third, I determined the presence of a “dominant” student in each group by
looking at Table 3-23 (page 125). Three Groups (2D, 5A, and 5C) of the fourteen had a
student who made the large majority (
60%) of the claims. These “dominant” students
appear in each third of the claim quality ranking (although Group 5C and 2D are
essentially identical). That suggests that the presence or absence of a dominant student in
the group doesn’t appear to directly influence quality of the original Claims. However, if
the groups are sorted by the “Use AC” column, then dominant students are not found in
groups that use Alternate Claims. This finding suggests that the making of Alternate
Claims may be inhibited in a group with a dominant student. It is important, however, to
note that the working definition of “dominant” is based on the overall percentage of
claims a student makes. Three factors may contribute to the number of claims a student
makes: The group members personalities, their social interaction and their knowledge of
physics. I did not find any pattern between the students’ overall class performance (Low,
Medium, High) and whether or not they were dominant in the groups. Groups 2D and 5A
were balanced (LMH) and Group 5C had a slight imbalance (LMM). In this context,
dominance therefore seems to be a personality factor. Group 4C, which had a “socially
dominant” member follows this pattern as well. The use of Alternate Claims (usually by
SV) after correct Claims (usually by EW) seems to be based more on how these students
interacted with each other and not on Claim quality. This may also reflect their lack of
co-construction.
This finding means that lower quality initial Claims tend to lead to Alternate
Claims, whereas higher quality initial Claims tend to lead to Modified Claims. Thus, the