PHYSICS PROBLEM SOLVING

(^)
procedures necessary to complete a group task or achieve a shared goal. (The criteria for
co-construction will be discussed in depth in Chapter 2). Mostly of the evidence for co-
construction from the cooperative learning research literature is indirect. That is, much
of the prior research in cooperative learning has focused on either comparing individual
achievement of students in cooperative groups to students in competitive or
individualistic learning environments, or on specific components of cooperative learning
such as group size or gender and ability mix in groups. For example, Johnson and
Johnson contend that “A conservative interpretation of the overall data would be that
participating in cooperative groups does not hurt, and often facilitates the achievement of
high-ability individuals, and clearly benefits the achievement of medium- and low-ability
individuals” (Johnson and Johnson, 1989; p. 47).
The inference that there is co-construction in groups comes from looking at
outcomes and products of the group. For example, a study by Heller, Keith, and
Anderson (1992) supports co-construction of a physics problem solution by college
students. Students solving physics problems in cooperative groups produced better
physics descriptions than the best student in the group working as an individual on a
matched problem. It was clear that the superior group product was not the work of the
best individual in the group. Indeed, even the lower ability student appears to have
contributed to a problem solution (Heller and Hollabaugh, 1992). That is, one thing that
is already known about cooperative groups is that the outcome or product of the group is
superior to the product of an individual. Groups are engaged in co-construction of a
product. What is important to note is that almost all studies have focused on outcomes as
opposed to the group process. “Few studies in science [education] have investigated the