SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE QUALITATIVE AND QUANTITATIVE RESEARCH
Two important questions in any research are those of generalizability and repeatability.
The very nature of a qualitative study makes broad generalizations tenuous and repetition
difficult. It may be, however, possible to generalize or repeat the study in similar contexts. Such
a context would be a course where the instructor and teaching assistants knew the basics of
cooperative group problem solving but do not strictly follow all the structuring and management
guidelines. However, I must agree unequivocally with Schofield that I have no desire “to engage
in the relatively unexciting task of conducting a study designed specifically to replicate a
previous one” (Schofield, 1990, p. 203). What I believe to be more fruitful is to translate or
extend the study to similar contexts. The similar context would be a college physics course,
either calculus-based or algebra-based, in which the Johnson model of cooperative learning was
employed. Three possible studies come to mind.
First and foremost, it is our hypothesis that the problem-solving strategy seems to give
these students a means to “talk physics.” Given some of the less than desirable composition
aspects of these groups (number, gender and performance mix), it is amazing to me as a physics
teacher that they did as well as they did on these problems. Since the problem-solving strategy is
itself a “construction” and provides an outline of the problem solution, the strategy may be
partially responsible for the argument co-construction patterns. An interesting study would
compare two courses using cooperative learning that are alike except for the use and non-use of
the specific problem-solving strategy. One could compare the argument co-construction
structures of groups in the two courses.
It would be possible to “control” for some of the “variables.” Because much of what I
found is intimately a part of the problem-solving strategy we use at the University of Minnesota